Jestersix

Check your Reef Crystals Salt!

[quote author=iani link=topic=2773.msg29660#msg29660 date=1200018082]
It would seem like Aquarium Systems should have at least been a little more careful in testing their product before packaging and sending it to their distributers. How hard is it to perform a test on each batch to ensure QC. I applaud dr foster and smith to their handling of the situation. But I don't know if I can trust Aquarium Systems for putting out salt that never should have seen the light of day. They shouldn't have to address the issue because it shouldn't have happened in the first place. What about negligence on the part of Aquarium Systems, I'm sure some blame can be placed there.
[/quote]

Now I can not dispute most of that :) I agree on all but not trusting AS and negligence. They could argue several points. Any good product liability lawyer could take this to task real quick and they most likely have a team of them. The fact it is tht such a slight error could kill some corals, they could argue negligence on your part for not testing. Since they list no values it could be argued a varience in the product is ok and one should test to find out the final mix before using it on sensitive corals. The list just goes on and on.

I am disappointed they don't have a better QA system from juding how this is working out. No batch numbers? Are they testing each batch?

I do QA as part of my job and I pull multiple bottles during production, inspect them, bring them home to use and put the rest into a cooler for a year.

This just kinda opens my eyes I really should test my salt batches myself before using them. If they could mark them I can then be assured testing one of my six buckets should be the same for all. I don't mind that and it does help me adjust the levels to the T, rather then doing my RANDY IO mix formula :D
 
They used to use batch numbers, but they stopped. So that is disturbing to me from a QA standpoint.

I think I'll go back to IO. I think there's a better chance of consistancy in the product over RC.

I'm not so much concerned with the Ca/Mg/alk as those can be adjusted with either salt. I'm more concerned about what else might go wrong on the production line that we might not notice until too late.
 
[quote author=Mr. Ugly link=topic=2773.msg29720#msg29720 date=1200070095]
They used to use batch numbers, but they stopped. So that is disturbing to me from a QA standpoint.

I think I'll go back to IO. I think there's a better chance of consistancy in the product over RC.

I'm not so much concerned with the Ca/Mg/alk as those can be adjusted with either salt. I'm more concerned about what else might go wrong on the production line that we might not notice until too late.
[/quote]

FWIW, I'm still using water mixed from my LFS but there are a lot of folks over on CVR that use a mix of IO and one of the other salts (forgot which one) since the each can have their +'s and -'s
 
IMO IO was just switched with RC on the line ;) I had a new guy put Roti-Feast into Arcti-Pod bottles. Since I take bottles off the line, I caught it. I could imagine that happenning at their plant as well.

nice to see people still hanging on every word of Randy's :lol: I saw that post as well :D
 
Hehe... I'm not hanging on to Randy's words.

I'd already posted that sentiment on our own forums prior to Randy's post.

It should be a pretty obvious concern, but I was surprised everybody was so fixated on just the Ca and Mg. I do a lot of QA at work. I see people get fooled all the time trying to track down problems. There's always more to it than people realize. And without knowing the root cause, people end up just treating the obvious symptoms.

When I saw Randy finally post that, I thought, "Hey did he just read my post or something?" :D
 
Psh, yah fell right into my trap :) Or course I was jivving you ;)

I have my doubts it wasn't just a simple mix up. To have 3 things off to the point of being just like anotehr product they make sure points to simple mix up. I do have no clue how they prep mixes though. machines do fail!
 
Seems like more than one problem though.

Earlier batches were showing 1150ppm Mg. More recent ones seem to be showing 900ppm Mg.

Some people have been seeing random STN/RTN of established pieces with this salt since early last year. Some of the problems look like alk issues, but the alk seems to have checked out all along with this salt. So there could be other issues.

Ok, so what kind of water parameters aside from alk should be checked when seeing STN starting at the bases of established colonies, and also for RTN?
 
[quote author=Mr. Ugly link=topic=2773.msg29786#msg29786 date=1200085870]
Seems like more than one problem though.

Earlier batches were showing 1150ppm Mg. More recent ones seem to be showing 900ppm Mg.

Some people have been seeing random STN/RTN of established pieces with this salt since early last year. Some of the problems look like alk issues, but the alk seems to have checked out all along with this salt. So there could be other issues.

Ok, so what kind of water parameters aside from alk should be checked when seeing STN starting at the bases of established colonies, and also for RTN?
[/quote]

Seem? That's nor far from assuming ;) While people post numbers, how do you know they used the test right, got the right value, tested at the right SG using a properly calibrated refractometer, etc, etc. With so many ways for things to go wrong with even simple tasks like testing, why would I ever trust peoples assumptions X brand of salt created X problem in their tank? Are you telling me they can rule out the million other factors that even properly trained scientists can't? Seems like some giant social experiment to me :lol
 
Don't forget that there seems to be a salt 'crisis' seems to every few years. :D Remember when bunches of people ditched IO for Oceanic and then freaked out when they started losing stuff?

I will be waiting till next time I need salt before making a decision. I'll use the three buckets I have of RC (the tank seems to be doing very well right now BTW - I don't test the make up water, I test the tank after a water change and then adjust), and see where AS stands. I originally moved from IO to RC for the elevated levels, but didn't rely on it much. I really only switched because RC is only a few bucks more than IO. I may move back to IO simply because of Norms (and Randy's) comment about QC. AS makes a bagillion times more IO than RC, so I gotta think the IO is more of a 'stable' product. But, as I say, we'll see.

Oh - in the interest of being forthright, DFS insisted on crediting me for my last salt order, even though I told them not to. If all companies had that level of customer service, this would be a great hobby. :D
 
[quote author=iani link=topic=2773.msg29660#msg29660 date=1200018082]
It would seem like Aquarium Systems should have at least been a little more careful in testing their product before packaging and sending it to their distributers. How hard is it to perform a test on each batch to ensure QC. I applaud dr foster and smith to their handling of the situation. But I don't know if I can trust Aquarium Systems for putting out salt that never should have seen the light of day. They shouldn't have to address the issue because it shouldn't have happened in the first place. What about negligence on the part of Aquarium Systems, I'm sure some blame can be placed there.
[/quote]

Oh, I agree, it is there fault, I just don't think, at this point, that there is anything nefarious on their part. This is a tiny industry, and QC issues happen all the time. Hydor, Tamm, Won - a ton of companies have issues simply because they are small. RC is made less than IO, so I would expect more problems in RC. Its also important to realize that the demand for cheap stuff makes it more likely that there will be QC issues. If I was paying 100 bucks for a bucket of salt, I think I might expect more, but for 30 bucks...its like expecting that the 10 dollar fan from walmart wont break in a year or less. :D
I think if AS pays attention they can really really fix this. Adding batch numbers, posting the results of the batch tests, and offering a price drop on salt for the next few months would be good ways to take control of this issue. Will they be willing to do it? We'll see. :D
 
When the Dog/cat food scare got rolling a few years back, the manufacturers responded inline with what Rich is talking about. They have batch numbers on the bag that you can take online and see the test results for the product. Some spent millions implementing such systems, but they had many more millions on the line with law suits stacking up. In at least one case the company knew about what was in the chinesse sourced grains!
 
[quote author=GreshamH link=topic=2773.msg29790#msg29790 date=1200090211]
[quote author=Mr. Ugly link=topic=2773.msg29786#msg29786 date=1200085870]
Seems like more than one problem though.

Earlier batches were showing 1150ppm Mg. More recent ones seem to be showing 900ppm Mg.
[/quote]

Seem? That's nor far from assuming ;) While people post numbers, how do you know they used the test right, got the right value, tested at the right SG using a properly calibrated refractometer, etc, etc.[/quote]

Not assuming in this case :D

I measured 1150ppm from buckets I got early last year. Another BAR member also got 1150, but from buckets around the middle of the year.

For some recent buckets I measured 900ppm and the other person measured 900ppm as well.

Different people, different test kits, different refractometers, different calibration solutions, but consistent results.

I have 5 buckets that I'm going to do a bunch of retests on. But I don't think I've made any test errors.

Sometimes I joke(but it's actually true), "People have their LFS do water tests for them. But the LFS has *me* do water tests for the LFS :D "
 
Then you miss used the word seem :) Seem, appear, assume, they all conjure the same thought of no proof ;)

As far as people telling you their results, many lie on forums about their results. "Oh, I have no PO4" and such :)
 
Ok, finally got around to retesting one of my recent buckets.

Alk 4.6 meq/L
Ca 360 ppm
Mg 860 ppm <---- that is totally insane!

I knew I was getting 1150 Mg from some previous buckets, so had been bumping the Mg by 200 to get 1350 on the freshly mixed salt.

860 + 200 = 1060 Way too low. That explains why I was losing corals.

So the RC problem is more than just a mix up with IO :(
 
Thanks for starting this thread. I never thought about testing my Salt. It seems like all my RC is around 900 mg, using Elos test kit. I am waiting for Dr Frost and smith to send me new buckets, I will be sending serveral samples back. These buckets really caused a lot of trouble, I must have been shocking my coral with Mg additives to make up for this.
 
I don't think the buckets caused a lot of trouble, I think relying on the levels in the buckets to remain constant caused a lot of trouble, which seems to me to be kind of like adding additives without testing for them. In a perfect world we could rely on it, but this hobby is far from perfect. :D
Regularly test your tank water, so you know what is going on in the tank. :D
If we really wanted to stay on top of it, before a water change we would test the tank, the make up water and then after the the change, test the tank again adjusting along the way.

This doesn't mean that its a shame the levels are low in some buckets. ;)
 
Aquarium Systems tested my salt and came out w/different results from what I saw. I was at the lower end of the ranges. They're still sending me a new bucket for my troubles, which is extremely generous of them.

Oh, I also got the ranges on RC for those interested.

Ca: 415-460mg/l
Mg: 1230-1380mg/l

Test was performed at 1.0255 SG.
 
I actually have no idea why he chose to test at that salinity either. I asked him for which kits he's using and his method, but got no reply.

I tested at 1.026 myself and got Ca at 365 and Mg at 1100ish. The new bucket that I got is better. Ca came in at 425 and Mg was in the 1250 range.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top