A
Anonymous
Guest
I think all we have to do is double our "Trace Elements" additions.
Interesting info about some salt mixes
- Thread starter dragon0121
- Start date
Doesn't it seem strange to anyone that he put the urchin larvae in what is basically newly mixed saltwater that's been aged a bit? The point made about the difference in mortality between IO water and IO TANK water from a hobbyist is a good one. We wouldn't put our corals, fish, etc. in newly mixed saltwater right? But after it's been exposed to LR, LS, algae, etc. for a couple months, we will.
I, for one, will continue to use IO salt on my tank at home.
I, for one, will continue to use IO salt on my tank at home.
He states that certain salt mixes used in this study proved to be toxic to Urchin marine larvae and he extended that link to all marine life. Well, before I tore down my tank (when I moved). I always had a thriving tank full of marine organisms reproducing and surviving in my system at high levels, from fish down to micro/macro fauna. Guess which salt I use? Instant Ocean.
I have no intention to throw out my existing supply, nor do I have any intention to switch to a new brand.
I have no intention to throw out my existing supply, nor do I have any intention to switch to a new brand.
He mixed the water 1 day before using it. That is about the time I leave newly mis salt water before using. Still, I like to have someone do a rigorous assay on all the salt mix on the market today.wombat":1z8kbczb said:
I am willing to put in $200.00 if anyone willing to do this.MattM":1z8kbczb said:
Minh Nguyen
Dr. Ron used a bioassay method used in evaluating water contamination by the EPA and other government agencies. I don't think you can argue with the method. You could ask for more tests and on a broader range of salts. If the method is faulty then many Environmental regulations in this country are also.
Certain species are more sensitive to certain enviromental condition than other species. These species are often use as a early warning marker, or test subject to ID that something is not right in the enviroment. These Bioassay type studies are well proven to be effective and usefull in many enviromental studies.jamesw":2tcjqjbi said:
Certainly with would not be good if we only look and find out about something that are killing our children only after we know that there is something in the enviroment that killing them. The same hold true to a certain extend in our tank. I don't question the methods of the study at all. However, I would love to see confirmation study. Isn't it too bad that this is unlikely to happen in our situation? But what the heck, I can always dream right?.
While I was doing my undergraduate biology degree at the Universty of Michigan, I took a developmental biology class where we raised sea urchins from egg and sperm. We used IO at that time, and an entire class of roughly 100 students was perfectly capable of raising the young.
I also feel that the correlation between sea urchin larvae and anything else in our tank is dubious.
I also feel that the correlation between sea urchin larvae and anything else in our tank is dubious.
Tough to say really. We did not individually place 50 larvae into each dish for observation and count how many died. We basically took syringes and siphoned up a few drops of water and observed them using a microscope. I never got the impression that there were only a few to observe. There must have been thousands.
The purpose of the lab was not to test the salt mix in terms of urchin larval survivability, it was to observe their development. My experience as it pertains to the topic of the salt mixes was to illustrate that IO was successfully used to raise urchin larvae.
The testing for the s15 report were done by an independant lab so the results are valid. It is the interpretation that is suspect.
I believe that the s15 testing showed that the Aquacraft salts are lower in heavy metals than other salts, as is the other salt that Dr. Ron had success with in his urchin larvae tests.
The owner of Aquacraft made up the rating system based on the results of the testing and voila his salt came out the best. Gotta like that marketing spin!
Dr. Ron's most recent tests are an independant validation (of sorts) that the Aquacraft salt he tested, along with one other salt, are better, at liest for organisms extremely sensitive to polutants. His results are based on limited sample size so there is an issue of accuracy however it is another piece of evidence.
There may be no conclusive test that positively proves that heavy metals are toxic at the levels found in most aquaria, but there is a large body of evidence that in the ocean, heavy metals at much lower concentrations are toxic. Unlike Dr. Rons tests, these were poperly funded and therefore done in the appropriate sample sizes etc.
If you start to put all the pieces together, what we have here is a growing body of evidence that heavy metals are not good for the inhabitants of our aquariums.
There is one member of Reef Central, saltshop, that switched to one of the salts low in heavy metals. He says that he has larger and more diverse populations of small critters since the switch. Yet another piece of evidence, even if it is only a casual observation.
If everyone who said they would like to see more tests sent Dr. Ron $10 we might actually see more tests.
Just my $.02
Fred.
I believe that the s15 testing showed that the Aquacraft salts are lower in heavy metals than other salts, as is the other salt that Dr. Ron had success with in his urchin larvae tests.
The owner of Aquacraft made up the rating system based on the results of the testing and voila his salt came out the best. Gotta like that marketing spin!
Dr. Ron's most recent tests are an independant validation (of sorts) that the Aquacraft salt he tested, along with one other salt, are better, at liest for organisms extremely sensitive to polutants. His results are based on limited sample size so there is an issue of accuracy however it is another piece of evidence.
There may be no conclusive test that positively proves that heavy metals are toxic at the levels found in most aquaria, but there is a large body of evidence that in the ocean, heavy metals at much lower concentrations are toxic. Unlike Dr. Rons tests, these were poperly funded and therefore done in the appropriate sample sizes etc.
If you start to put all the pieces together, what we have here is a growing body of evidence that heavy metals are not good for the inhabitants of our aquariums.
There is one member of Reef Central, saltshop, that switched to one of the salts low in heavy metals. He says that he has larger and more diverse populations of small critters since the switch. Yet another piece of evidence, even if it is only a casual observation.
If everyone who said they would like to see more tests sent Dr. Ron $10 we might actually see more tests.
Just my $.02
Fred.
cant do that if the heavy metals are concentrated in your sandbed 8OBill2":va7barmn said:Down with water changes they only add hevy metals to our tanks!!!!!!
Or maybe....
Adding a poly pad filter that is supposed to take out heavy metals will make the heavy metal point mute!
iceman16238":urjjem47 said:
If these heavy metals are bound to the sandbed then they shouldn't cause any harm in the aquarium! A good illustration is copper. Ever try dosing copper in an aquarium containing carbonate based rock or sand? It falls out of solution within hours and is not effective against parasites.
Greg
hmmm...another semantics thread?
afaik. Cu gets bound to CaCO3 via a chemical bond,- is that better? :wink:
i think there are many heavy metals that get incorporated into the rock, and the substrate, chemically-meaning they're no longer active in the water column :wink:
i'm also pretty sure that many invertebrates, and algaes can absorb many times their own weight in heavy metals, with no apparent ill effects
i think that any study on the constituents of a sw mix needs to go further than just what the mix contains, but also needs to focus on what actually happens to those constituents in a 'typical' hobbyist's closed system
afaik. Cu gets bound to CaCO3 via a chemical bond,- is that better? :wink:
i think there are many heavy metals that get incorporated into the rock, and the substrate, chemically-meaning they're no longer active in the water column :wink:
i'm also pretty sure that many invertebrates, and algaes can absorb many times their own weight in heavy metals, with no apparent ill effects
i think that any study on the constituents of a sw mix needs to go further than just what the mix contains, but also needs to focus on what actually happens to those constituents in a 'typical' hobbyist's closed system
Sponsor Reefs
We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.
Click here to sponsor $10:
