Is it really cheaper in the long run though? If there's one lesson I can impart onto anyone from my mistakes, it would be "don't slough off on testing." If a number is important to you, you need to track it. I feel so completely burned on KZRB now, I felt "Well, I don't need to test because I paid more!" .. Yes it is my mistake and I accept responsibility for it .. the point is .. if I have to test anyhow and dose to adjust Ca/Alk/Mg anyhow ..then I might as well take the salt that costs half because the additives I use are paid for by the difference. For real. And they last me way longer than a bucket of salt. I guess there must be different break-even points depending on total volumes, bioloads, water change volumes and frequencies, targetted levels and consumption rates, and the additives one uses. (Wow, that's a lot of variables. Can we work in moon phases into the list too?
).
I dunno, but it just seems to me that everytime I've listened to the hype about a salt, I've been disappointed. A salt is a salt? Can it really be a tipping point (barring "bad" salts or batches or whatever)..
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishytime
Well, the way I see things is I will hopefully need to dose less Ca and Mg by running this salt and it is less expensive than KZRB....a win-win for me, methinks. Of course I will make up those costs in test kits  |