lduncan

So you have no reason whatsoever to believe that "zeolites help remove ammonia prior to it's entering the nitrification process"? That is ignorant. I'm curious to know how you know it was due to zeostart? Do you think is is due to rapidly decreasing phosphate and nirtate, which stresses the corals? What is an OD of zeostart? I used as directed, and I had problems. Since then the dosing recommendation of start has been reduced to 1/4 of what it was, along with other warnings and changes. Why is this?

I can guarantee that you are adding more than just bacteria when you dose zeobac. And it is obvious to ANYONE who has used it. I haven't actually, just a statement from you. Anyhow, how does this conflict with what I have said? This paragraph is an example of how your understanding of these dynamics are simple at best. It is not that simple. Hence why I pointed you towards that book. The only thing I would be on the run from is your continual inability to read and understand, and yes I am close to giving up on you and wasp completely. Also, I never claimed to have all the answers.

How? You must have a reason for believing this. Good I agree. The role may be more complex. How do you explain the fact that many people report bleaching, tissue loss, and even coral death when starting the system?

If I recall correctly I said something like "may not be necessary" or "probably not necessary" or something to that effect. Which is different to making a factual statement like "Zeobac is not necessary", which would imply I know for a fact how zeovit works. Which I don't. It does not show that at all. Do you understand how zeovit works? If so, explain. Layton

I'm not talking about zeobak. I'm talking about bacteria. There is a difference, zeobak does not just contain bacteria. Also I you read what I say it's very similar to what you are saying. I say, that continually dosing bacteria is pointless because; 1) If conditions are correct, bacteria will grow and multiply themselves. Making subsequent dosing of very little benefit. 2) If conditions are not correct, no matter how much bacteria you add, it will never colonise. Then you say that, if you provide the correct conditions for bacteria growth, say by adding zeofood. Then it is beneficial. Which I agree with. But then you say what if the bacteria use this food so quickly, that the population blooms and then dies before the next dosing the following day. This I have a problem with. Bacteria don't die within this sort of timeframe. Death due to this type of restriction is exponential, and related to the available food density and generation time, just like growth is. Layton

Umm... sorry, I didn't know that I was trying to say zeovit doesn't work. Just because it works, there is not need to go make up reasons to explain HOW it works, which are not even close to accurate.

Read this. Then come back for rational discussion. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... s&n=507846 Layton

Wasp, I didn't know you were banned from RC as well. I suppose that's what happens when you don't understand what you read. Layton

Water quality is irrelevant to the topic we were discussing, thats why I stopped. Not because I was surprised. But the fact is, is that put into the appropriate context, some of what you are saying does not happen, so it is wrong. Layton

That's any easy one, as mentioned previously. Iron.

Alois has told me of your water parameters, and he was impressed. I have never had a detectable phosphate reading, and ran my most recent reef for over a year with completely undetectable nitrate, before a heater malfunction upset everything. I feed heavily and have what I would call I high stocking level. Very few problems keeping parameters in check here. Nitrate is returning to 0 after the move late last year, currently sitting at under 2ppm and dropping. I believe that zeovit does not work solely by dropping parameters such as nitrate and phosphate. And does not work as described in the zeoguide. Layton

Um, the zeolites are of limited use in terms of ion exchange, to the point of being irrelevant. Even when fresh, and any effect diminishes even further as bacterial colonies cover the surface. This is contrary to the claims made by the manufactures. Natural zeolites (which zeovit clearly is) do not exchange significant amounts of ammonia in non sterile saltwater, and the absorbtion which does take place reduces substantially when colonised by bacteria. What they do do, is provide an element which is has been found to be limiting in aquaria, which effect algae. Which is the reason I said I was wrong earlier. The zeoguide is still wrong in it's claim, which was why I stated that in the first place. Arthur, do you understand how zeovit works? If so explain. Layton

My claims were qualified. Also it was not a cheap shot at all. You got banned because you did not listen. wasp, I don't need to test your water. You know why? Because I am not saying the system doesn't work! I'm not even saying that adding bacteria is completely useless. I'm not criticising anyone personally for no reason. But when you continues to misconstrue what I have said and twist it into some sort of "zeo bashing" statement then I am justified in saying these things. You constantly say I have said things that I have not. It's annoying. I'm done on this topic. There is so much crap surrounding zeovit it's just beyond a joke.

You mean you and Arthur. Ignorance is bliss.

Arthur now I am beginning to see why you were banned from reefcentral. You inability to read what people have written and understand it gets you into trouble. wasp you are headed in the same direction too. Layton

1) Totally possible. Your saying conditions may not be suitable without dosing zeofood. This is consistent with what I have said. If the conditions are suitable, bacteria will grow. 2) Totally possible. Again, that would be the fact that tanks conditions may not be suitable without dosing zeofood. Which is consistent with what I have said. 3) Again, this suggests that conditions are not right for whatever bacteria you may be adding. It depends entirely on the dosing of zeofood. Which is consistent with what I have said. There are other issues in there but I won't go there. If indeed what you have said actually happens, you have to ask yourself, why bother with such and unstable method of reducing these nutrients? There are easier, cheaper, stable, and less time consuming methods. The main flaw in most of your arguments is that you are not putting things in the context provided by your reef tank, AND the manufacturers claims, and you are not arguing against what I'm actually saying, yet saying that i'm wrong.

Nope. I'll post later.

The fact is they haven't contradicted anything. Layton

But they are not.

Just when you thought this thread couldn't get any more ridiculous... it just did. Layton

Read what you wrote, the flaws are evident. If you can't see them, you never will, and i'm just wasting my time. The manufactures claims limit the possible bacteria genre quite significantly. Of course if what the manufacturer is saying is false, then some of my statements may well not be appropriate. Previously saying something which is wrong in no way undermines what I am saying now though. Layton

I really do not have the time at the moment to be continually posting this stuff. But it's difficult not to when it may well appear to others that Arthur has any sort of a case. I'll shut up now, but not for the fact that his response is not challengeable, but for the fact that I'm beyond caring what deluded zeo users think on this subject now. Layton

LOL your chasing your own tail. Read what you have said. I refuse to point out the stupidities in it any longer. Layton

First Theory: Umm, nitrifying bacteria are chemolithotrophs. And yes they will die reasonably quickly if the appropriate food is not available. Luck that there is always a continual supply of this food, otherwise your tank would be crashing randomly. I have explained this theory before. It's not wrong, it just doesn't happen this way with the nutrients the manufacturer is talking about. Second Theory: Completely misses my point. And has nothing to do with continual dosing. Third Theory: Um, am I missing something? Did I say that bacteria is useless in a tank or something? This doesn't address the continual dosing issue. Arthur, I'm not going to go round in circles on this, so consider this my last response to you, until you come up with something worth responding to. Layton