AJL

I'm surprised you feel it's OK for someone to slander a product, insist the manufacturer is lying, dodge the question when asked for proof, and then do it all over again, week after week after week. Well, maybe not surprised... Arthur

Hmm... why does this only happen when zeolites are used? As the author explained, a zeolite filter system can be extremely efficient in removing nutrients, far more so than a standard filter. It can drop the nutrient level to a point where it can shock corals more used to a high nutrient environment. With his statement, what proof do you have that it's not true? Hmm... maybe it's not the drop in "nutrients". Well, a Doctor in Marine Biology thinks it is, and an Electrical Engineering student thinks it's not. You'll forgive us if we side with him, won't you? That's true. I am not using my alternate theory as a reason why some of the manufacturers claims just don't happen, or work. Then what the heck are you using? How do you make that claim? If it's your zeolite claim, there is evidence that ammonium is adsorbed, and that the bacterial filter that grows up around it also aids in the removal. So why do you keep saying over and over again that zeovit cannot possibly work the way they say it does? If you don't even use your theory, what proof do you have? Arthur

My only contention has been, and continues to be, that Layton has no scientific principle on which he can rely to make the claim that the product can't work the way the manufacturer says it does. That's it. I don't know how it does what it does (I just know it does, IME), so I have no theory of my own to promulgate or vehemently defend, but it seems to me that if Layton is going to make what is essentially a slanderous claim, he needs to have some sort of proof. He has offered none. He has offered theories, but theories about alternate mechanisms do not give one the right to say the other theories (including the one by the manufacturer) can't be true. He seems unable or unwilling to understand that. Arthur

I love that "smiley". Arthur

c'mon boys, this is becoming tiresome. this is for both of you I agree with that (I think I'm the bum in the middle). Layton has been very forceful in his opinions re: zeovit, but any sort of analysis shows they're paper thin. He simply can't admit that, and keeps claiming "I've already shown that." Where? How can he keep any credibility while making claims like: zeolites don't add anything to the system. (August '04) zeobac doesn't add anything to the system. (August '04) continual dosing of bacteria is not necessary. (January '05) One by one these statements are shown false, yet he still makes them. Now we're back to "Zeolites don't adsorb ammonia in saltwater", when qualified marine biologists beg to disagree. All this from an Electrical Engineering student who read a book once for a paper. Perhaps they should consult you prior to publishing papers on marine biology, Layton? Arthur

Yip, but my point is, is that your are not JUST adding bacteria when you add zeobac. Do you know what else is in it? How do you know that something else is not having an effect? I don't, but since you're the one who made a point about it, you're the one that has to indicate why it makes a difference. Or dodge the question. I think we see which one you've chosen. Quote: I'm still waiting for you to tell us why/how/what you know that makes everyone elses points/theories incorrect and yours correct. Done He. Hehehe. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Seriously, where? Sure: "It permanently absorbs ammonium (NH4+) and ammonia (NH3) the first two chemicals..." Where is that quote? And in any case, from Kallmeyer: Don’t forget that Zeolites are the most effective ammonium absorbers available. "Dr. Jens Kallmeyer, who is also "an expert", although a bit more qualified, says among other things: " More qualified than who, and in what? More qualified than Boomer in determining the effects of zeolites in marine aquariums. Kallmeyer is a Doctor at the Max Planck Institut für Marine Mikrobiologie, Bremen. Boomer, while obviously smart and experienced, describes himself as "I had double majors in Geology and Zoology with a minor in Chemistry and many graduate level classes but never finished" who owns "...4 zeolite text books". I'll take Kallmeyer's word first every time. Careful what you read Arthur. What does this show? No miss here. Well, you said: zeolites (in there traditional use) are of little use in saltwater. This makes sense to me. And he said The Zeolites now used for seawater preferentially absorb ammonium Looks like a "swing and a miss" to me. Back to top You need to go "Back to school", looks like. Quote: Do you think is is due to rapidly decreasing phosphate and nirtate, which stresses the corals? do you think this is why? "No, although I can't say for sure. " So you are saying you disagree with what the manufacturer says? No, I said, "I can't say for sure", meaning I don't know. Interestingly enough, though, Dr. Kallmeyer seems to think so: In rather old tanks with higher nutrient concentrations, the corals were well adapted to these conditions and the sudden drop caused massive die-off of colonies that had been growing well over decades. The corals starved and became susceptible to parasites and diseases. If the corals did not starve to death, the parasites killed them. It seems that tanks that have started with Zeolite filtration run very well and without major problems, while old established tanks are much more sensitive to it. When switching from a different system to Zeolite filtration, some reports mention times of up to one year before the effects of the new system came fully apparent. Don’t forget that Zeolites are the most effective ammonium absorbers available. Keep a close watch on your corals, and measure the nutrient levels at least once a day over the first week. If the corals react too drastically to the changes in water quality the amount of Zeolite needs to be reduced. Strike two. (wait, you guys play Cricket here instead, right?) Arthur

Interesting that when asked for an example of where the manufacturer is lying, you ignore the zeobac question now and fall back to a discussion of zeolites. In any case... Ask boomer on RC (or preferably do some research), who is an expert in this field. He will tell you that there are two natural zeolite groups which have been shown to have marginally higher affinities for ammonia in saltwater than the calcium interference (Clinoptilolite and Heulandite). And that this weak affinity is reduced even further by bacterial interference. It is his view that zeolites (in there traditional use) are of little use in saltwater. This makes sense to me. Yet the manufacturer claims the zeolites are used for their ion exchange properties to remove ammonia. Please provide a cite from Boomer that indicates he contradicts the claim. In one of his last posts on the subject on RC, Boomer said: [quoting Randy Holmes-Farley] I'll concede that all comments that I've seen in these articles indicate that the authors think it possible that ammonia bound to the zeolite can in some fashion be used to enhance ammonia uptake by bacteria. I'm not convinced that it is true, but it is a reasonable hypothesis That was the theory I also gave on the Zeovit thread to Alex and Gary. I also stated that GAC could do about the same thing as your abstract stated to include other porous media. ... I don't know where I/we are. It seems to be up and down, I have changed my view twice in the last couple of days. It is getting more confusing Please cite quotes that indicate Boomer now believes that no ion exchange process to remove ammonia is occurring. Please. Yet the manufacturer claims the zeolites are used for their ion exchange properties to remove ammonia. Here is what the KZ and Captive Ocean sites say: Zeolites are a group of natural occurring minerals that exist worldwide. their chemica; composition can vary greatly and therefore exhibit different properties of adsorption, ion exchange of molecular retention. Today's modern industrial applications require very specific properties and therefore most of the zeolites used are either modified natural zeolites or completely synthetically manufactured. Our mix consists of three different zeolites. These zeolites were chosen because of their ability to reduce certain toxins in a balanced manner." If you have a different quote from the manufacturer, I'd like to see it. Finally, please read: http://www.wetwebmedia.com/ca/cav1i3/ze ... ilters.htm Dr. Jens Kallmeyer, who is also "an expert", although a bit more qualified, says among other things: The Zeolites now used for seawater preferentially absorb ammonium, but this is just one half of the story. The other half is where the biology comes in. As already mentioned, Zeolites have a very porous structure. Under the microscope, they look almost like a sponge. The larger holes are MUCH bigger than the smaller ones, about a thousand times bigger. This porous structure creates a large surface area for bacteria to settle. As the ammonium is adsorbed by the crystal structure, the bacteria living on the Zeolite get their food delivered to their doorstep. To enhance the filtration capacity, a carbon source is added, in most cases not directly into the filter, but into the aquarium. In most cases, aquaria are carbon limited. Therefore, by adding a carbon source, all bacteria in the tank receive some additional food. But as those bacteria that sit on the Zeolite get the ammonia much easier and in much greater quantity than others in the tank, they can make much better "profit" from the carbon addition. All of this is consistent with the description of the method, and with how we're supposed to use it. Swing and a miss. Try again. Arthur

Now, Layton, why would I answer your questions when you won't answer mine? Give me a single example of a claim made by the manufacturer that cannot be true. Just one. Let's start there. In the meantime, because I don't say "I've already answered that" too many times... Quote: So you have no reason whatsoever to believe that "zeolites help remove ammonia prior to it's entering the nitrification process"? is this true? Sure. I've already said I don't know exactly how the system works. I have theories, you have theories, everyone has theories. I went with empirical evidence, and now I'm part of the empirical evidence. I already said that the above was my initial theory, which I've modified since then. I don't know much about zeolites, and since there are thousands of them that function in subtly different ways, I doubt I'll know much about the 4 that are used in zeovit. Do you? Quote: Do you think is is due to rapidly decreasing phosphate and nirtate, which stresses the corals? do you think this is why? No, although I can't say for sure. See how easy it is to admit that? Remember, Layton, "Always certain, seldom right." I think it is more similar to what happens with RTN and tissue problems when people have bad vodka-dosing experiences, which is primarily a bacteria-based method. As to exactly what happens, nope, not a clue. Please, enlighten me. Arthur

Your joking right? Last time I checked bacteria were not liquid, nor did they form crystals. Ah, so that's what you're down to now. You corrected me when I said you implied there was no good reason to continually dose zeobac, making sure I knew it was just the bacteria you were talking about. At a minimum, that implies you were thinking there is some other active ingredient in zeobac. Do you believe that? Quote: You read the book, right? Just give us the page number where it says that. Two years ago. Parts of it were recommended reading for a biology paper. So tell us where it says that bacteria populations can't bloom and die out over the period of 3-4 days. That seems to be your only objection to the theory I provided. Should be simply enough to scrounge up a source, no? Quote: In order to be able to be taken seriously, you need to show why. I've explained why. I don't need to show why. OK, I'll open it up: can ANYONE here, anyone recount what Layton says is impossible in Pohl's description? Anyone? Got a quote? Anyone remember him laying it out for us? It's a long thread, so I may have missed it. If no one else can find it, Layton, maybe you can just recap what's impossible about it. Arthur

I can guarantee that you are adding more than just bacteria when you dose zeobac. Please, for the love of Pete, tell us how you can guarantee it. It is these overblown claims, backed by nothing but conjecture, that destroys your credibility more than anything else. And it is obvious to ANYONE who has used it. I've used it. It isn't obvious to me. Please, pray tell, what makes it obvious? I haven't actually, just a statement from you. Anyhow, how does this conflict with what I have said? What you said is that zeovit cannot work the way Pohl says it does. My personal theory is that you say that because Bomber said it, but he won't tell you why, so you can't tell us why. To prove me wrong, simply tell us why zeovit cannot work the way Pohl says it does. Don't trot out a theory of how you think some of the components may work: that doesn't give you the leverage you need to say it cannot work the way Pohl says it does. In order to be able to make such a blanket statement, you must provide an explanation of how it can't work the way Pohl says it does. 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. I got that from a microbiologist, so I guess his understanding is simple too. Look, if it's that simple, stop giving us Amazon links and just say it. Paraphrase the part that indicates why bacterial populations are not able to bloom, consume their food source, and die, all in the span of a few days. You read the book, right? Just give us the page number where it says that. Also, I never claimed to have all the answers. No, what you have claimed is that zeovit can't work the way Pohl says it does. In order to be able to be taken seriously, you need to show why. You obviously haven't done that, and most of us doubt you ever will. Obviously, many of us doubt you can. There's really only one way to prove us wrong, and that's to pick a claim, and show how it's impossible. Should be pretty easy, if you've got a leg to stand on. Arthur

I wrote: Zeolites help remove ammonia prior to its entering the nitrification process Layton responded: How? You must have a reason for believing this. No, I musn't. You keep getting confused, Layton: without knowledge of the ingredients, the bacteria involved, or how the system works, you need to prove it can't work. If you're going to say that the system can't work the way it's advertised, it is incumbent on you to show why it's impossible. Simply providing a theory that shows it may work a different way doesn't show anything interesting. How do you explain the fact that many people report bleaching, tissue loss, and even coral death when starting the system? Most of those reports are associated with OD of zeostart. Not zeobac, not zeofood, but zeostart. Since I don't know the ingredients, I don't know why. I do know that some people had tissue recession, RTN, etc., when trying to use the vodka method, which is well-established to create bacterial blooms, so bacterial manipulation can cause similar problems. I dosed and used the system the way it was recommended, and didn't experience what they experienced, and I don't use zeostart at all now. IIRC it wasn't even a part of the original system; I think it was an add-on to help people achieve low levels of phosphate faster while the rest of the zeo system was becoming established. Purely conjecture, I admit. Arthur

Hi, Peter... I have nothing but theory, like everyone except for Thomas Pohl. To be honest, in virtually every other facet of my life, I'm a skeptic, so I do understand the reaction of some. I decided a long time ago, though, to trust the experience of others more than scientific theory or advertising when it comes to my tank. There are so many examples of stuff that looks good on paper that turns out to create havoc that I wasn't bothered by not knowing exactly what's in zeovit, given the experience of several people that I trusted. My original theory was that it's a 3 part system. Zeolites help remove ammonia prior to its entering the nitrification process, and provide a surface for the growth of strains of bacteria. Zeofood and zeobac create and maintain a bacterial population for both feeding the SPS and maintaining a nutrient poor environment; my personal belief is that at least some of the bacteria bind with the phosphates and are skimmed out. Zeostart creates a planktonic bacterial bloom, similar to vodka, for quicker reduction of phosphates. I haven't seen a lot so far to demonstrate this theory is wrong, but I won't swear by it. It seems that the role of the zeolites might be more complex, providing a surface for growing bacteria that can act as a food source for SPS as well as denitrifying bacteria. A couple of microbiologists have suggested that the zeobac/zeofood process might actually help sustain multiple bacterial populations that have a complex interaction, which they believe goes a long way towards explaining why continual redosing might be necessary, to help reestablish bacterial populations that might be temporarily outcompeted or otherwise killed off. The description of zeostart seems to indicate that its primary purpose is the quicker reduction of phosphates; I don't use it anymore, about 8 months into using zeovit, and I haven't since about month 5. I believe it's very helpful while established tanks are getting rid of pooled phosphates and other nutrients, but once that happens the zeobac/zeofood are able to maintain low levels. Observationally, I haven't seen anything that would contradict the above. In the beginning for my tank, zeostart was necessary to keep phosphate levels low, and my skimmer worked overtime. Once my pooled phosphates were depleted, the zeobac/zeofood seem able to maintain a population that continues to keep my levels low. A few months ago my zeobac went bad without my knowing it (I was almost out of it anyway), and over the period of a week my phosphates rose (which was what made me check the zeobac); replacement of the zeobac source with a new bottle brought phosphates back down in about a week, so I'm fairly sure that I still need zeobac (but not zeostart). I don't think the water changes are necessary for export so much as for replenishment of trace elements, etc. I think the skimmer is the primary method of export of phosphates bound with bacteria (or something else, I suppose). All of this is theory and observations, of course. All I know is that in 12 years of keeping reefs, this is the first time I've been completely satisfied with a system, and with my tank. Within 2 weeks of starting zeovit my corals began coloring up like they never had before, and I'm able to permanently maintain undetectable phosphates (well, for 8 months plus ) for the first time ever. I know there are other methods out there that can maintain nutrient poor environments, and some people have great success with other methods; I'm not denigrating those systems at all, but I never had success with DSBs, refugiums, phosban, etc. Maybe it's just me...but I can live with that. Without knowing the contents of the ingredients, I just don't understand how anyone can say that the product cannot work the way it's supposed to, without having any hard proof that one of the claims of operation is false. Or heck, without even having an explainable theory as to why it's impossible. Apparently they think that having a theory of how it could operate differently is good enough, but for them to be able to say it doesn't, they have to show why it can't. For a while, some on RC were claiming zeobac contained no bacteria (because a cursory inspection by a somewhat qualified hobbyist showed none), and speculation went wild with charges that Thomas Pohl was selling everything from sugar water to urine (yes, urine). Funny, but when a real test showed multiple strains of bacteria, as Pohl said were there, none of those people apologized. Odd. Arthur

I'm not talking about zeobak. I'm talking about bacteria. There is a difference, zeobak does not just contain bacteria. Really? Layton, what else is in zeobac? For you to make a bold statement like you did above, you must know. And does it require us to dose as we do? If not, why would you possibly quibble about whether we don't need to dose zeobac, or don't need to dose the bacteria in zeobac? 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. Not true. You've already been shown a case in which a strain of bacteria might be limited by both a nutrient in our tank, and a food source. If the bacterial bloom that follows uses up the food source provided in zeofood, it is quite possible (or so the microbiologists tell me) that the strain would die out very quickly. 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. Are you saying that you are so familiar with all marine bacteria that you can state this, against the opinion of trained professionals? My dosing of zeobac is twice a week; I have been told that it is quite possible for entire populations of bacteria to bloom, devour their food source, and die, all within a 3-4 day span. If you want to disagree with this, you need to provide a source, either a trained professional that agrees with you, or some passage from a reputable text that indicates no marine bacteria would possibly have that life cycle and metabolism. Death due to this type of restriction is exponential, and related to the available food density and generation time, just like growth is. Attempting to imply that all strains of bacteria have a death curve similar to their growth curve is ridiculous on the face of it. Bacteria bloom exponentially because of their method of reproduction. Once their food source is gone, they do die off exponentially, but at a much faster rate, so much so that it looks like a cliff. How could they not if the food is gone? Some of the bacteria can hang on for days after the food is gone while their brethren die of starvation? Food gone, bacteria die. At this point, it's apparent that you're on the run...it's time to admit you don't have all the answers, or show us that you do and explain why things can't work the way we've said. Anything else is pure sophistry. Arthur

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. This is getting really tiresome. You have no idea how it works because, like the rest of us, you have no idea what's in it. Every theory you've come up with as to what it is or isn't doing has been shot down: the zeolites don't do "nothing", as you've finally admitted, and there have been theories presented that fully explain hang-ups you seem to have like why zeobac would need to be redosed periodically. Note that I'm not trying to claim the theories are true; it doesn't matter if they're true, because all they are meant to show is that you're wrong when you say that there could be no reason behind redosing bacteria. I fully admit that we're as in the dark as you are on what exactly is happening, but there are consistent theories out there, vetted through multiple microbiologists, that align with observational results by hundreds of users and that are consistent with manufacturer claims. And of course, there are the end results in hundreds of tanks. So basically, if anyone is making anything up, it would seem to be you. If you have a theory as to how the system works and test results that prove some or all of it, that is consistent with observation, and that proves the manufacturer is lying, I'd love to hear it. In the meantime, please quit slandering the product; it adds nothing to the conversation. Arthur

Ah, rats. Arthur