lduncan

Oh God. Limit this to the context of a marine aquarium and the claims of what the bacteria do (from the manufacturer) and then rethink. It really does narrow things down appropriately. There are common fundamentals which apply to ALL life forms. Didn't say that. Do you have strain names? If this is the case then you should be asking the manufacturer why they are misleading you then. If zeofood is REQUIRED by a particular bacteria, which it may be. Then conditions before using zeofood would not be conducive to whatever bacteria you may be talking about, so I would not expect to find it in your tank. Anyway this has nothing to do with what i'm talking about. Why continually dose? Reading comprehension. Nope. You are still continually missing my point. I AM NOT SAYING CATEGORICALLY THAT THE BACTERIA IN ZEOBAC IS DOING NOTHING! My issue is with CONTINUAL DOSING. As I have stated many times. Now people may see why I question the reading comprehension of zeo users. Why they continually go round in circles chasing their tails over things which are never said. Zeofood could have three effects on the added bacteria: 1. It kills them. Making redoseing of bacteria necessary. 2. It has no effect. 3. It provides a food source which is limited in the tank. In which case bacteria populations grow naturally, making redoseing pointless. So how do these three outcomes support your thinking that continual dosing is benificial? Ok I admit I was wrong there. After further research on zeolite composition and sources, I have altered my position. Although I accept it's not at all evident, that statement was referring to the claim that zeolites are effective at ion exchange in saltwater. But as written, yes I now believe it is wrong. Also a lot of my postings do not include important qualifyers, for the simple fact that my posts would be 3 time longer than they already are, and I couldn't handle that. Is this just a myth, or were these experiments carried out by independent people follow appropriate methods? ALL living things share a few common fundamentals. No, my statements are made from the context of a reef tank, and the manufacturers claims. So bacteria is the only thing in the bottle, it must be bacteria right? This proves, or explains nothing. reading comprehension. Just like on other boards, you are continually not reading what I am saying. It got me annoyed there, and frankly I don't have the time to waste in writing long replies to you, when you do this.

Lucky I'm not saying that then. But if the zeovit manufacturer is to be believed here, we are not talking about same random, obscure strain of bacteria, we are talking of those which include nitrifyiers, denitrifiers, along with ones which use sizeable amounts of phosphate. Yip that's exactly what I'm doing, BUT based on the claims of the system. Maybe the system claims are wrong? They may, but what happens to the other bacteria when they die? The decompose releasing phosphate and nitrate back into the system. As for Jakstat's response, I find it strange. He says a small inoculation would be adequate, which I agree with, but then says especially if repeated over a couple of weeks, he then goes on to say Which is really the core of what I am explaining. You can't bring these populations up and into equilibrium overnight, so why continually does to try and accelerate it? All that is really required is a single does. What is the point of the continual dosing? I don't see any proof yet. No admission until I understand why I may be wrong.

No, when i'm wrong... Wait a minute, yeah, I'll go with when hell freezes over.

Steve, If there is one thing i've learnt from my job, as well as during my degree, it's that you should let people know exactly how ignorant you are of a particular topic from the get go. That way they can't blame you if you stuff up . Also, and more importantly, you learn a lot more, than if you were to pretend you know everything. I have been known to be wrong . And have no problem admitting that when the time comes. Layton

And in reply to the other post: As explained above. What if zeobac is not the critical part of the system? Sorry, but how can you summise that because the manufacturer recommends continual dosing, the metabolism of whatever bacteria is in zeobac is relatively slow? What if something else contained within the zeobac bottle has another effect? No, the appropriate food and conditions will have an exponentially larger effect on populations than adding a few 10's or 100's of billion bacteria from a bottle every day. Exactly, so if the conditions are right, the populations will be there. No bottle of bacteria will determine whether conditions are right. Even if you removed all the zeolites there is likely to still be a significant population of any bacteria, more than the 10's of billions you are adding from the bottle. The zeovit system claims to reduce nitrate and phosphate through a combination of biological and chemical processes. I am talking about bacteria which feed on these nutrients. As such, available phosphate and nitrate does not just disappear and reappear over night. If we were talking about some other trace nutrient then this may be the case. However if nitrate and phosphate fluxed like this the tank would be highly unstable you would not be able to keep much alive for very long. The population will drop because there is not enough food for ALL of them. Phosphate availability in a system is not like a tap. It is not just turned on and off. There is continual "input" from a variety of sources even when measured as low on a test kit there is still a "flow" of phosphate through the system. The populations will NOT be wiped out if the right conditions and food are available. Why would the population not grow? LOL it MIGHT be true for a UNKNOWN bacteria which happen to use phosphate. Also how do you know that bacteria is responsible for dropping phosphates when using zeovit? How do you even know that phosphates actually drop? There is a reason why they would not be in your tank. The conditions are not suitable. If they aren't viable, then why are you trying to add them to your tank? Personally I have never fought phosphates, but that's beside the point. You already have bacteria to reduce phosphate in your tank. Why are your phosphate levels high? Well could be another limiting factor in the growth of the bacteria, whether it is another molecule, or substrate. Really comes down to not having the perfect conditions. Adding bacteria is not going to change the conditions. There are a couple of elements which have been found to be limiting to some processes in aquaria. Guess what they are. It's possible, but put into the context we're talking about here it is never going to happen, with any of the methods we use. Yip, because I have been talking about the insignificant effect of continual dosing on populations. Zeofood has no bearing on this. Yip, again because I have been talking about the insignificant effect of continual dosing on populations. In the traditional use of zeolites they don't. I said I believe it does nothing (not literally, but with respect to the system). Again it's about the insignificant effect of continual dosing. I never said that you said that. I was restating my position. Adding bacteria (if it is the same blah blah blah) will increase the population quicker given appropriate conditions. But the fact is, is that the amount you are adding is so insignificant in comparison to the existing bacteria's population and reproductive abilities. That is may make only hours (or less) difference in the population numbers. What's the point? What conditions specifically are you talking about? Quite simple. All living things have requirements, if those are met they will live and reproduce. LOL do you know what dynamic means in this context? It has absolutely nothing to do with wild swings in parameters. I'm not attempting to prove anything. Arthur you shouldn't take peoples word for things. Do a bit of research to confirm and check what you are saying. And also Arthur, I had enough of your stupid replies and reading comprehension problems on other boards. Don't be surprise if I don't bother replying to any other of your posts on this topic. Layton

Ok to respond to your post immediately above. No. I think that it is highly unlikely, to the point of being impossible, that the bacteria which is a part of this system, is found exclusively (ie no other trace of it in your system) on the zeolite contained within the reactor. And that all traces are removed when you replace the media. If the conditions are appropriate and there is the required food available there will be a population. The size of this population is irrelevant, but will grow and shrink as determined by these parameters. VERY bold assumption. As is the assumption that the bacteria in zeobak are actually a significant part of the system. Layton

This is going to take me a while, so before I reply properly re-read what you wrote, and think about it logically. And post anything that you think doesn't quite add up. PhD in CS you should know logic? (I hope) Layton

I'll have a field day on this later, tonight. No time right now. Brace yourself. Layton

Most powerheads will make noises, even when used with soft start wavemakers. Pumps like tunze streams are made for switching and throttling and don't suffer from noise problems. Layton

When was the last time you had an ammonia spike after cycling? Layton

Arthur I've said a one off dose is all that is necessary, unless you have a complete tank crash. I've never said that adding bacteria is useless. Just that continually adding bacteria is pointless. So my issue is really with the continual addition. On your first point, it is highly unlikely that this bacteria are limited exclusively to the zeolite. And again it is highly unlikely than in changing out the zeovit you are going to remove every last organism. My point is is that there will be more than enough bacteria to re-establish populations faster than you could add it. On your second point, that is right, and exactly what I've been trying to explain. Bacteria that are of no use in the system will decrease in population, limited by supply of food. But that is no justification for continual dosing, quite the opposite Also just because a system is nutrient limited (ie test results show low values) does not mean that there is not a continual flow of these nutrients through bacterial processes. So you would have to look at uptake rates to determine whether or not there is a real lack of food for these bacteria. High ambient levels of nutrients are an indication of a discrepancy in production and usage rates in the past.

Stick with nori/ spirilina, they need a lot of green food in their diet to look their best. Mine is about 8" and eats about 1/4 of a sheet of nori a day, along with some brine shrimp. I stay away from flake foods (other than spirilina), stick to frozen mysis brine shrimp. Layton

What size is the tang? Sounds like an average amount of food. The tang will be the most greedy out of the lot. Spirilina / nori, similar thing, nori is cheaper though. The tang needs this type of green food. Layton

No, just waiting for something stupid to be said

It looks to be made for freshwater. It says they use a combination of biological and chemical filtration. Clay based surface for bacteria to grow, and then an ion absorbing resin to absorb nitrate, nitrite and ammonia. Being targeted at freshwater, I don't know whether or not the resin would be effective. The clay just acts like live rock in supporting denitrifying bacteria I suppose. Not exactly expensive stuff though. Layton

Colorimeter?

What fancy gizmo?

What does your water change water test at for phosphate?

:roll: :roll: :roll:

You start. Not much to discuss really. A proverb comes to mind. "You can lead a horse to water..." Layton

Fine, just as long as you realise that the rapid drop in these nutrients will not cause bleaching, or tissue loss. Layton

Where? I don't recall.

I didn't ask you to prove it, give me an explaination, and I'll try and prove it to myself. How do you know it's phosphate which is limiting, and not something else? That's "CAN" be true, for algae "GROWTH", but can you achieve this consistently and easily in an aquarium? This has absolutely nothing to do with your theory of zooxanthellae being expelled due to a rapid drop in nutrients. It means that growth may be stunted. Well, stop to think about what you are saying then.

Where? I don't recall. Name sometime when phosphate is really limiting in a tank? What for? What's the full story then? would 75% drop over a day be enough, maybe 99.99% ? Again, what's the full story? Where?

That is a rather naive response. You think that you can deplete the bioavailable phosphate to a level which it can be limiting? And then do it fast enough that corals (and zooxanthellae) can not adjust? There are reservoirs of phosphate throughout your tank, whether you can detect them with a test kit or not. You are adding phosphate when you feed, phosphate is released when things decay. You would be difficult to even force a condition where phosphate is really limiting. Zooxanthellae need very little phosphate to live. The require light, carbon dioxide and water to sustain themselves. They use phosphate mainly for reproducing. Dropping phosphate and nitrate is not going to cause a mass dieoff of zooxanthellae. Nor is it going to cause expulsion by the coral, because the populations are the same as they were before the nutrients dropped, and they still have all the food they need. BTW What do you class as a catastrophic drop in nutrients? A substantial and rapid increase in limiting nutrients, on the other hand, is likely to cause problems like zooxanthellae expulsion (bleaching). So how about basing your thoughts on real life research rather than crude conclusion drawing. Hope that wasn't too knee jerk.