TM Posted November 15, 2006 Report Share Posted November 15, 2006 Has anyone tryed this yet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puttputt Posted November 15, 2006 Report Share Posted November 15, 2006 no, but I'd like to. Have always used std red sea, and it's too low in ca and Alk and Mg. Is it available yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubbles Posted November 15, 2006 Report Share Posted November 15, 2006 Has anyone tryed this yet? A few of us are pretty keen to get our hands on it. Dogmatix may be able to comment on when it'll be available. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lduncan Posted November 15, 2006 Report Share Posted November 15, 2006 What's the difference from their normal salt? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubbles Posted November 15, 2006 Report Share Posted November 15, 2006 What's the difference from their normal salt? Could well just be a marketing gimmick, but still looks interesting http://www.redseafish.com/Product.asp?dir=y&CatId=98&SubID=68&proID=283 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puttputt Posted November 15, 2006 Report Share Posted November 15, 2006 higher levels of Ca and Mg and a better Alk. I've always used red sea and found it a very good economical salt ($129 per bucket at HFF), but it does drop those 3 levels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puttputt Posted November 15, 2006 Report Share Posted November 15, 2006 Thanks Bubbles, nice to have a Ca at 480ppm!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lduncan Posted November 15, 2006 Report Share Posted November 15, 2006 I prefer the lower calcium levels in RS, the low magnesium is annoying, the lower alk doesn't bother me either, it drops so much every day it's neither here nor their in the scheme of things for me. Is there a price premium for this Pro salt? I just noticed 480ppm calcium at 1.025 sg. That alone would be reason enough for me to stick with their standard salt or IO. Layton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubbles Posted November 15, 2006 Report Share Posted November 15, 2006 Thanks Bubbles, nice to have a Ca at 480ppm!! Heck yeah, may give us 'newbies' a chance to get some coral growth going Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reef Posted November 15, 2006 Report Share Posted November 15, 2006 Has anyone tryed this yet? It’s due out shortly. Base on my tank I really can’t the benefit of having higher levels of kh/cal as it will drop within a matter of days. So what is the point of paying extra for a days worth of high levels. But on low stocking tanks maybe it would be better as they don’t consume so much kh/alk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lduncan Posted November 15, 2006 Report Share Posted November 15, 2006 Heck yeah, may give us 'newbies' a chance to get some coral growth going If you want coral growth (as opposed to growth of lime deposits) you want to keep calcium much lower than that, and boost alkalinity instead. Alk is limiting, not calcium. Layton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puttputt Posted November 15, 2006 Report Share Posted November 15, 2006 keep my Ca at 440-450ppm, Alk at 8.5-9.5Kh. Don't have an issue with growth. Tested the current red sea and it's only about 360ppm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puttputt Posted November 15, 2006 Report Share Posted November 15, 2006 It’s due out shortly. Base on my tank I really can’t the benefit of having higher levels of kh/cal as it will drop within a matter of days. So what is the point of paying extra for a days worth of high levels. But on low stocking tanks maybe it would be better as they don’t consume so much kh/alk. I think your right, the cost of boosting it with a bit of CaCl would be far cheaper than the expected premium. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lduncan Posted November 15, 2006 Report Share Posted November 15, 2006 You won't have an issue with growth running calcium at those levels, but there is little benefit, as far as growth goes, keeping it that high. It does increase the rate of abiotic precipitation on things like pumps and heaters though. Which can be a problem sometimes. Calcium becomes limiting over alk for calcification when levels fall below around 350ppm. So I like to keep levels around 380 to 400. Alk is the single most important water parameter for coral growth. But yeah, if people aren't adding a lot of calcium or alk daily through 2 part or a calcium reactor, it's probably a better option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skuzza Posted November 15, 2006 Report Share Posted November 15, 2006 I think it will be alot better as when i do water changes it drops my levels a little, add that to the fact that it does drop fast anyway and you have an extra low reading. Then you have to add extra calcium, mag, etc to bring it back up which costs more money plus the fact that when your levels are lower it takes longer to bring them up. But still you ave a good point is it cost affective. If nothing else it might save on time and effort. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puttputt Posted November 15, 2006 Report Share Posted November 15, 2006 Agree with you Layton, but like to keep mine at least equal to NSW - 420ppm. Recently overdosed a bit on CaCl, up to 500ppm and what a pain with buildup on my streams!!!! :evil: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tel Posted November 15, 2006 Report Share Posted November 15, 2006 Alk is the single most important water parameter for coral growth.. layton can you please tell me what levels you aim for/ keep in regards to alk, ca and mg. thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lduncan Posted November 15, 2006 Report Share Posted November 15, 2006 Calcium 380 - 400 Alk around 11 or 12dKH Mag around 1100 - 1200 (not as important when calcium is a little lower) remember Alk == carbon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tel Posted November 15, 2006 Report Share Posted November 15, 2006 Calcium 380 - 400 remember Alk == carbon what does this mean? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lduncan Posted November 15, 2006 Report Share Posted November 15, 2006 When you hear people talk about adding carbon sources to a tank, how carbon can be limiting, just remember that alk is carbon. Redfield says that the ratio of C : N : P is significant in determining dominace of algae species, and because N and P are near impossible to keep at "natural reef levels" (P especially), no matter how hard you may try. I prefer to run alk higher which compensates for this, to some degree, keeping the ratio closer to where it should be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tel Posted November 15, 2006 Report Share Posted November 15, 2006 alk 8 ca 420 mg 1100-1200 i had read that alk 8 was ok and only thought my mg was low as some reading suggests @1300 to be good. can you please expand a little on the alk side of things? ta. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TM Posted November 15, 2006 Author Report Share Posted November 15, 2006 A few of us are pretty keen to get our hands on it. Dogmatix may be able to comment on when it'll be available. no, but I'd like to. Have always used std red sea, and it's too low in ca and Alk and Mg. Is it available yet. As far as i am aware it is here now. Costs a bit more and comes in 7kg (about 59) and 22kg (about 140.00)[ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.