BIO-SEA® Marinemix: THe untold story

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

With all of the hoopla about BIO-SEA® Marinemix, it seems as if some folks have neglected some critical issues with this salt.

Primarily, from my perspective, it does not do a very good job of matching natural seawater of several ions (based on the manufacturers own data):

Lithium is 1700% of seawater (they claim that is good because it is a "metabolic stimulator")

Boron is only 5% of natural seawater levels (why the heck leave it out? It is an important pH buffer; they claim it to be a toxicity concern even at natural levels, so they leave it out on purpose: http://www.aquacraft.net/sf9908.html )

Iodide is about 1000% of seawater iodide

Sulfate (a major ion) is a whopping 24% above seawater (they claim higher sulfate is good, but give no justification:
http://www.aquacraft.net/s9910.html

Copper is much above NSW (as are many metals), and higher than my tests of IO


all data from: http://www.aquacraft.net/w0002.html

[SeanT]

Thanks for the info.
I was thinking of changing but have been hesitant to depart from good ol' IO.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

FWIW, I'm not claiming that any particular salt is best, only that they all have their oddities, and that they don't do a very good job of reproducing NSW. BUT, people should not infer from some comments about certain metals that these salt mixes do a better job of fully reproducing NSW than any other mix.

[Mako]

Your using data from the S-15 report to tell this story.

[SeanT]

I dig what you're saying.
I am from the school of 'If it ain't broke...tinker with it."

But if IO is perfectly fine then why change?

As soon as it warms up a bit more I will be using NSW for awhile anyway. Got to see if it 'perks' things up.

[justletmein]

Originally posted by Mako
Your using data from the S-15 report to tell this story.

S-15 is put out by Aquacraft isn't it? I'd think if you pull negatives from their own marketing material they'd be correct. It's the positives you'd have to worry about.

[diverrad]

i made the switch to BIO-SEA® Marinemix about a month ago nothing bleached everything seems happy and my red slime problem went away but that could be due to many other factors. All in all I'm very happy with it

[saltshop]

Originally posted by Randy Holmes-Farley
With all of the hoopla about BIO-SEA® Marinemix

I though Crystal Seas Marinemix was the one getting all of the hoopla...ya know the bleaching one.

[Mako]

Oops...my bad. I just realized from JB's comments that Randy is talking about Aquacraft marinemix and not ME marinemix. doh I was thinking ME's salt when I read "all the hoopla".

Clear as mud, right?

[BonsaiNut]

Originally posted by Randy Holmes-Farley
With all of the hoopla about BIO-SEA® Marinemix, it seems as if some folks have neglected some critical issues with this salt.

I don't know what "hoopla" you are talking about

There are two approaches to analyzing salt mixes. The first is a chemical makeup analysis, the second is a biological impact analysis. Each has its own importance, and neither should probably stand on its own. Chemical analysis is easier, and more people refer to it, but not a single chemical analysis will answer the important question of "yes, but does it work?".

Personally, I don't care if my salt mix contains cow dung as long as it offers survivability in line with NSW As far as the "critical issues" you refer to, I'm not sure how you have proven that they are critical at all

I am using a lot of smiley faces because I don't want you to feel like I am attacking you personally. I just don't think chemical analysis (by itself) gets us anywhere. As such, I tend to ignore chemical "salt mix" threads since I have yet to read one that tells me anything useful. They all dance around the question of survivability because they cannot answer it.

[oz]

Randy et al,

I was going to say the same thing saltshop just said.

From Dr. Ron's article , Crystal Sea Marinemix's Lithium is 0.110.
NSW's Lithium is 0.173, IO=0.375

[saltshop]

If this salt mix thing doesn't straighten itself out pretty soon, I think I am the one that is going to need some Lithium!

[Tucker]

Originally posted by Randy Holmes-Farley
FWIW, I'm not claiming that any particular salt is best, only that they all have their oddities, and that they don't do a very good job of reproducing NSW. BUT, people should not infer from some comments about certain metals that these salt mixes do a better job of fully reproducing NSW than any other mix.

I am curious about this seemingly universal concept that salt mixes should reproduce NSW. Isn't it possible that marine life
adapts to NSW DESPITE components that it might be better off without?

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

BonsaiNut:

I am using a lot of smiley faces because I don't want you to feel like I am attacking you personally.

An attack? I agree 100%. I've fought thousand post battles claiming that chemical analysis of water doesn't prove the case for toxicity.

You'll note that I didn't claim any salt mix to be better than any other. I simply pointed out that this particulr mix does not reproduce NSW as well as might be desired, nor as well as many might think

Personally, I don't care if my salt mix contains cow dung as long as it offers survivability in line with NSW

So have you tested your salt mix or tank water using any creature that you actually keep in your tank?

Do you know that your tank water can support urchin embryos?

What salt mix do you use and why?

I'm not sure how you have proven that they are critical at all

I agree. I do make a case for natural levels of boron in one of my boron articles:

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/dec2002/chem.htm

[Mako]

Tucker

To Reef Central

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I am curious about this seemingly universal concept that salt mixes should reproduce NSW. Isn't it possible that marine life
adapts to NSW DESPITE components that it might be better off without?

I agree. It almost certainly is true that some or maybe all organisms might be better off with different levels of something. But without any detailed studies of what might be better, how is one to go about deciding what is "better"?

Even if one had a study that showed one organsim is better of at say 460 ppm calcium instead of 420 ppm calcium, would that be a reason to subject everything in the tank to that level?

[Tucker]

Originally posted by Randy Holmes-Farley
I am curious about this seemingly universal concept that salt mixes should reproduce NSW. Isn't it possible that marine life
adapts to NSW DESPITE components that it might be better off without?

I agree. It almost certainly is true that some or maybe all organisms might be better off with different levels of something. But without any detailed studies of what might be better, how is one to go about deciding what is "better"?

Well, by testing salt formulations that do NOT approximate NSW.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I just realized from JB's comments that Randy is talking about Aquacraft marinemix and not ME marinemix. doh I was thinking ME's salt when I read "all the hoopla".

And the reason that more folks are hooping over the Crystal Sea Marinemix-Bioassay Formula rather than the BioSea Marinemix is because of the statistically insignificant difference in larval survivability?????

[BonsaiNut]

Originally posted by Randy Holmes-Farley
What salt mix do you use and why?

I use NSW

Of course, that doesn't mean that all NSW is equal, especially stuff that is collected off the coast. I buy my NSW from a West Coast outfit called Catalina Seawater (or something similar). From what I hear, they don't pull their NSW from Catalina, but from the Long Beach pier. That is pretty close to the coastline, and I try to avoid buying NSW after a rain (with all the nasty California run-off), but most stores keep the water in big storage tanks, so you never really know what you are getting (or how long the water has been in the store). I had one near-bad experience when I bought the water from a store and the salinity was only 1.019 (via refractometer). Normally it is 1.0235 dead-on.

I have never tested the water for any trace chemicals aside from the classic NHO3, NO2, NO3. I have to say I have had great results.

[oz]

Randy,

You ask why.
May be its because Crystal Sea Marinemix is closest to NSW and has nothing to do with larval survivability.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Well, by testing salt formulations that do NOT approximate NSW.

Sure, I understand how you'd do the experiemnts in theory, but in practice you'd need to test every organsim that you care about to set optimal levels for an aquarium that were different than natural seawater.

Surely you cannot use sea urchin embryos or any other single organism to determine the optimal levels of chemicals for every organism. After all, they don't even use some chemicals that other organisms use from the water column. It is well established that different organisms have different abilities to pull certain chemicals out of the water, often varying by orders of magnitude, in addition to the fact that many use totally different chemicals in the first place.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

You ask why.
May be its because Crystal Sea Marinemix is closest to NSW and has nothing to do with larval survivability.

Assuming that is actually true (both in fact and as the reason), that's a fine reason. I've not seem many folks express that as their reason, but I admit I cannot read every thread.

[Mako]

Originally posted by Randy Holmes-Farley
And the reason that more folks are hooping over the Crystal Sea Marinemix-Bioassay Formula rather than the BioSea Marinemix is because of the statistically insignificant difference in larval survivability?????

Hmm, how do ya figure that it is statistically insignificant? Don't follow that one. I am no expert, by any means, but the numbers looked disparate enough to warrant recognition on my part regardless of which path is chosen to believe as to the cause.

[Bomber]

Just some random thoughts on this.

While CS says right on their label that their product does not contain EDTA, for all practical purposes they will have to use some buffer/chelator to make their product work. IO does and that explains the brown precipitate that some people get when they mix it up. EDTA binds iron (and that can be replaced by other metals, Cu, Zn, Mg, Ca, etc) and falls out of solution at the high Ph that salt mixes mix up. EDTA and NTA are the most common chelators (keeps iron in solution) used in algae, etc culture. As a result people are noticing "cloudy" conditions when they mix up this salt, if anything that leads me to believe that the chelator that they are using is still active at this high Ph and keeping something in solution and leaving it bio-available.
I would venture a guess that if you traced the raw components that each company uses back to it's original source, you would find that most (if not all) are buying from the same sources. Either directly or indirectly, and all will have the same suppliers (there just aren't that many) and the same impurities. Even at that, the grades that they are buying would all have to be within the same price range to be competitive and that's regulated as to levels of impurities and what they are.
So unless some company has figured out a way to buy very expensive high purity base chemicals to start with, at a ridiculously low price, debating the contents of these salts is a moot point. They will all have impurities within the allowances of regulation and that can change almost day to day.

Table 1: pH stability of iron chelates in nutrient solutions under practical conditions.



Product Stable in pH range*

Fe-EDTA 1.5-6

Fe-DTPA 1.5-7

Fe-EDDHA 3.5-10

Fe-EDDHMA 3.5-11

Cu-EDTA 2.5-10

Mn-EDTA 3.5-10

Zn-EDTA 2.5-10



Ca-EDTA 5-10

Mg-EDTA 6-10

* Stability could be influenced by the presence of other ions

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Hmm, how do ya figure that it is statistically insignificant?

You mean the difference between Crystal Sea Marinemix-Bioassay Formula and BioSea Marinemix ?

When I do a t-test on those two results in Ron's article, I get a p of 0.36. That means there is a 36% chance that the apparent difference between the two is a random event (and that there is no actual difference). Most folks like to see p less than 0.05 (less than a 5% chance of random differences explaning the results) before claiming any significance. I know that Ron agrees with this.