I dont get it with all for reef.

[areefer01]

That is simply not true. AFR is among the highest cost way of supplementing ALK and calcium in the US.

They also stated "with trace elements" and later added DIY components. That may not change the fact. I was clarifying their statement.

I am very well aware of your chart.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

They also stated "with trace elements" and later added DIY components. That may not change the fact. I was clarifying their statement.

I am very well aware of your chart.

No, they stated this exactly:

“1600G powder AFR is cheaper than any 2 part and includes trace.”

But even if we go with your assertion that it means to say that AFR is cheaper than any two part that has supplemental trace elements, do you believe that statement is true?

I need only find one that’s cheaper to prove it wrong, but let’s take the much higher hurdle: can you name one brand of two part with trace elements that actually costs more than AFR?

 

[areefer01]

No, they stated this exactly:

“1600G powder AFR is cheaper than any 2 part and includes trace.”

But even if we go with your assertion that it means to say that AFR is cheaper than any two part that has supplemental trace elements, do you believe that statement is true?

I need only find one that’s cheaper to prove it wrong, but let’s take the much higher hurdle: can you name one brand of two part with trace elements that actually costs more than AFR?

It isn't my my assertion, it is what they said. You have it noted above which I put in bold. I only replied to the post to say they said "includes trace" - my post below. I also noted that it may not change the fact.

Edits: clarity

Edit 2: you asked me a question which I didn't catch in my reply. Apologies. I've not done any math on the subject other than to calculate my daily dose vs the 1600g powder container cost and how long it will last me. Nothing more simply because it is no of importance to me. I noted that I am aware of your chart which acknowledges that you have done it. You may be aware that I've said a few times I don't agree with AFR being red which you may have changed to orange. I've not looked at it lately.

Happy Friday.

 

[buruskeee]

No, they stated this exactly:

“1600G powder AFR is cheaper than any 2 part and includes trace.”

But even if we go with your assertion that it means to say that AFR is cheaper than any two part that has supplemental trace elements, do you believe that statement is true?

I need only find one that’s cheaper to prove it wrong, but let’s take the much higher hurdle: can you name one brand of two part with trace elements that actually costs more than AFR?

Can you do the calculations for us with ESV or BRS (total solution Alk/Cal/Mag plus trace)?

Here’s mine for my tank. Please use 150g and the dose amount to increase from 8.0 dKh to 8.1dkh to find cost per dkh.

AFR 1600g for $75 (I get the $65 Petco deals) is 10,000ml of solution.

For my 150g tank, every 10ml adds 0.1dkh (1.33 dKh per dollar spent)

 

[buruskeee]

I don't agree with AFR being red which you may have changed to orange. I've not looked at it lately.

That’s because his chart uses liquid AFR and does not calculate powder (even though later in that article there is a picture of powder being mixed up).

He has it at $37/L when the powder is $7/L to make using the powder.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

It isn't my my assertion, it is what they said. You have it noted above which I put in bold. I only replied to the post to say they said "includes trace" - my post below. I also noted that it may not change the fact.

Edits: clarity

Edit 2: you asked me a question which I didn't catch in my reply. Apologies. I've not done any math on the subject other than to calculate my daily dose vs the 1600g powder container cost and how long it will last me. Nothing more simply because it is no of importance to me. I noted that I am aware of your chart which acknowledges that you have done it. You may be aware that I've said a few times I don't agree with AFR being red which you may have changed to orange. I've not looked at it lately.

Happy Friday.

I understand it’s not your claim, it is their claim that my initial response was to.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

That’s because his chart uses liquid AFR and does not calculate powder (even though later in that article there is a picture of powder being mixed up).

He has it at $37/L when the powder is $7/L to make using the powder.

I have recalculated this in several threads for several “claims” that I was unfair to AFR.

I use powder AFR. I have nothing against it . But it is not correct to claim all two parts cost more.

Once more into the breach…

1600 g AFR powder costs $75 at BRS and makes 10 L.

Tropic Marin Balling three part bundle at BRS costs

A $15.81 for 1 kg, makes 13 L
B $12.71 for 1 kg, makes 13 L
C $18.33 for 1 kg, makes 42 L

To make 10 L it costs:

12.16 + 9.77 + 4.36 =$26.29
Since the two part is weaker, we need to scale it up by the potency ratio, 2.14.

Thus 10 L equivalent potency of the TM two part costs 26.29 x 2.14 = $56.26

Thus, the premium two part from TM is CHEAPER.

If you want to roll in the cost of extra trace elements using TM A and K, that will push up this two part above AFR, but the BRS hybrid is significantly less.