Refractometer Calibration Method: Solution or RO?

[ralph atl]

Acroholic;713151 wrote: I believe you should have an accurate calibration regardless where your fish come from, but also agree that salinity stability is more important that chasing 1.025 or whatever.

if you start out with something way off (i.e., Salinity) then everything else is going to be off, i.e., alk, calcium, mag...then our hobbu test kits are =/- a good bit, you can wind up with lower than adequate Alk and not even know it...

but yeah, generally speaking, salinity is more importantly should be stable...

 

[grouper therapy]

Robb's point was that one's refractometer deviation would have to be way off to have an impact on your system, more than what the deviation between CALIBRATION with ro water vs. 35 ppt solution would typically be. It is wise to check your refract or hydrometer against a 35 ppt solution to verify but is not an absolute must every time you use it.

 

[grouper therapy]

Lilrobb's point (directed at newbies) was that if your salinity is a little off due to the deviation of a refactometer calibrated with rodi water versus 35ppt solution , it can still be and most likely is within an acceptable range considering the wider range of salinity in the world's oceans. I will admit that to calibrate with 35ppt solution is the safe and most accurate method.

 

[ichthyoid]

Robb's map of worldwide salinity shows that it varies within a range of approximately 5% ( ~ +/- 2.5%). Although, I would also be interested in seasonal variations, as well.

That should show us that stability is the rule.

FWIW- In Biology, generally the smaller an organism is, the more susceptible it is to environmental change. (think about bacteria here)

 

[grouper therapy]

5% in not accurate. It is almost double that at 10% from the 37ppt of the Atlantic to the 33.5 ppt or less of the Indo-Pacific region around Indonesia. Both are common locations we receive livestock from.

Edit: That range is even broader if one would like to factor in the Red sea at 40ppt taking it to 20%, another common location that were receive livestock from.

 

[grouper therapy]

I'm not sure percentage is the best way to represent the differences. One can still see the relatively large differences in salinity of the world's oceans.

 

[ichthyoid]

Yes their are exceptions Dave, you are right.

I was referring to where most of our corals actually come from. That's why I said "generally".

The 37 in the Atlantic is in the Sargasso Sea (where 'the doldrums' occur). There is also a reading of 29 in the Arctic. Neither location is known for their coral reefs. The Red Sea is something of an anomaly, and the species present reflect that.

Back to the point-
Not a huge variation in range over coral bearing locations (above exception noted). As I also said, I would be interested to see the local seasonal variation, as that's more germane to our discussion.

 

[grouper therapy]

Yes their are exceptions Dave, you are right.

I was referring to where most of our corals actually come from. That's why I said "generally".

The 37 in the Atlantic is in the Sargasso Sea (where 'the doldrums' occur). There is also a reading of 29 in the Arctic. Neither location is known for their coral reefs. The Red Sea is something of an anomaly, and the species present reflect that.

Back to the point-
Not a huge variation in range over coral bearing locations (above exception noted). As I also said, I would be interested to see the local seasonal variation, as that's more germane to our discussion.[/QUOTE

The salinity of the oceans where our fish (also inhabitants of most reef tanks) is not relevant/germane to a discussion on the accuracy and stability of the salinity in our systems? So few specimens of fish come from the Red Sea or the Atlantic ocean? No one here has Ricordia or inverts from the gulf of Mexico ? I fail to see where seasonal variation has absolutely anything to do with our systems unless you have a monsoon in your tank.

 

[grouper therapy]

ichthyoid;713285 wrote: Robb's map of worldwide salinity shows that it varies within a range of approximately 5% ( ~ +/- 2.5%). Although, I would also be interested in seasonal variations, as well.

That should show us that stability is the rule.

FWIW- In Biology, generally the smaller an organism is, the more susceptible it is to environmental change. (think about bacteria here)

Sorry but I did not understand worldwide to mean only where the majority of corals are harvested.and that generally here meant something else. My bad.

 

[ichthyoid]

grouper therapy;713311 wrote:

Yes their are exceptions Dave, you are right.

I was referring to where most of our corals actually come from. That's why I said "generally".

The 37 in the Atlantic is in the Sargasso Sea (where 'the doldrums' occur). There is also a reading of 29 in the Arctic. Neither location is known for their coral reefs. The Red Sea is something of an anomaly, and the species present reflect that.

Back to the point-
Not a huge variation in range over coral bearing locations (above exception noted). As I also said, I would be interested to see the local seasonal variation, as that's more germane to our discussion.[/QUOTE

The salinity of the oceans where our fish (also inhabitants of most reef tanks) is not relevant/germane to a discussion on the accuracy and stability of the salinity in our systems? So few specimens of fish come from the Red Sea or the Atlantic ocean? No one here has Ricordia or inverts from the gulf of Mexico ? I fail to see where seasonal variation has absolutely anything to do with our systems unless you have a monsoon in your tank.

Regarding ^- Because it is the effect of exposure of the animals to deviation from salinity 'norms' that I thought we were discussing here.

Look, I have posted my opinion. That's all it is. I don't expect anyone to take that as gospel. I could be wrong, and have been on many occasions. I have no problem admitting that either. Furthermore, 'we' (collectively) will not prove or disprove anything from a discussion.

FWIW- I have often said that I learn more from my mistakes than my successes. I have learned much from this thread.

 

[grouper therapy]

That is relative Bill but as I have stated our inhabitants come from the areas I mentioned as well that we put together in our systems to coexist thereby making those locations relevant also. I don't agree with the norm in regards to the ranges(temp and salinity) defining stability with in our systems. I spoke of this in a couple of LFS and felt that my life was in danger. Here is an article that supports my idea somewhat. The intent of some of my post here was to lessen the hysteria ,if you will, caused by some of the unfounded truths concerning acceptable variations in the salinity of our systems.

 

[ichthyoid]

ichthyoid;713285 wrote: Robb's map of worldwide salinity shows that it varies within a range of approximately 5% ( ~ +/- 2.5%). Although, I would also be interested in seasonal variations, as well.

That should show us that stability is the rule.

FWIW- In Biology, generally the smaller an organism is, the more susceptible it is to environmental change. (think about bacteria here)

FWIW-
Robb and I discussed my statement above, and he made an excellent point. I would like to restate this as 'higher' organisms are generally more adaptable than 'lower' ones. As smaller does not always necessarily indicate lack of development with a given organism.

Examples-
Animals that developed integumentary (skin) and circulatory systems, were able to effectively carry the ocean around with them, thus becoming adaptable to environments other than the oceans.

Humans have adapted to survive in every environment we have encountered, including the highest mountains, deepest oceans, outer space, etc. It is our specialized organs (including the brain) which has enabled this.

 

[grouper therapy]

Below is a quoted opinion from another article in reference to keeping corals from different areas of the world.


Finally, there is the very real problem of the mixed fauna and flora found in many of our systems. Aquarists tend to mix animals from different geographical areas with joyous abandon. This results in a tank full of animals with a variety of ranges of tolerance depending on whether the animal was from the very warm waters of Indonesia or the cool subtropical waters of the northern Gulf of Mexico. A modification an old saying would apply here. As a "Jack of all trades is a master of none," generalized conditions are not good for any tank inhabitant. Maintaining a tank in upper 70 degree F range (24-26 degrees C), will stress any reef inhabitants from the central Indo-Pacific as it is too cold, and as this is near the upper limits for subtropical organisms it will stress them as well. It would be better for all concerned, if aquarists concentrated their efforts in maintaining separate systems for organisms from geographically disparate areas.