AJL

Four words, or one number? In the time you said "I'll post later", you could have just as easily given me a single number, representing which of the 4 items I posted was incorrect. Fine, we await your response. Which is not possible, or is unlikely? Arthur

Which of the 4 parts to the theory I spelled out for you is inconsistent, impossible, or unlikely? If you can't answer that one question, I think it's best you concede that you just hadn't thought of every aspect, and are once again incorrect. Arthur

Read what you wrote, the flaws are evident. Cripes. Please, quit dodging the question. For the benefit of all, here is just one of the possible theories, in 4 simple parts. Please show where the flaw is. 1) At least some of the bacteria in zeobac could be nutrient reducers/binders that require a food source or other limiter that is not generally in our tanks. 2) Their food or limiter is provided in zeofood, kept in a separate container and dosed simultaneously with zeobac. 3) If zeofood is dosed, the bacteria could flourish for a brief time, binding with or reducing the nutrients and getting skimmed out, until their food source/limiter (zeofood) is exhausted, causing the population to die off. This would be especially true early in the dosing process, when the nutrient they also use is prevalent in the tank, possibly causing a bacterial spike every time it's dosed and quicker depletion of whatever food source/limiter is in zeofood. 4) Dosing zeobac and zeofood together ensures that if #3 happens, the population of bacteria has a chance to rebuild, using the food source/limiter in zeofood. Please, Layton, in the above 4 steps, which is so impossible or unlikely that the entire thing is ridiculous? No fluff, no "I answered that already", just pick a number, any number, and tell me why it's simply not possible. Because if you can't, if 1-4 above are possible (as I think even you know is true), there is a viable theory as to why zeobac would have to be redosed periodically. It doesn't even matter if it's the right theory, because it completely refutes your assertion that there is no conceivable reason for having to redose zeobac periodically; if there is one such theory, there are likely others, and you'll have to admit that your assertion is not supportable, as painful as that might be. Pick a number. Arthur

Jeez, Layton, seriously, just admit you can't back up your claim; it'll be simpler in the long run. You have NO IDEA what the bacteria in zeobac eat, how they live, or why they might die. You therefore cannot claim that redosing is not necessary, especially when you yourself indicate it might be possible that they need zeofood to live in our tanks; misdosing zeofood, or having a bacterial bloom that consumes it all before the next dosing resulting in a dead bacterial population, could leave the tank with no population of the bacteria, meaning periodic redosing is necessary along with the zeofood. It's only one theory, but it fully explains why redosing of zeobac might be necessary. As such, it keeps you from claiming that there is no possible reason for zeobac to have to be redosed. Where is the flaw in that one, lone discussion point? Look, you've already admitted once today you were wrong; that first time is always the hardest. Arthur

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. No, it doesn't. You have no idea what bacteria are in the bottle, and unless you want to present credentials showing otherwise, you have no idea what all marine bacteria are capable of. As such, simple examples explaining why bacteria might need to be periodically redosed in various situations completely refutes your claim that zeobac redosing could never be necessary. I AM NOT SAYING CATEGORICALLY THAT THE BACTERIA IN ZEOBAC IS DOING NOTHING! My issue is with CONTINUAL DOSING. And that's the point I have refuted, with examples where continued dosing of bacteria may be necessary under a variety of circumstances. 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. That 3rd one completely refutes your point. If it provides a food source which is limited in the tank, and bacterial populations die because of a lack of that food source, periodic redosing of the bacteria would be necessary. Just adding food periodically would ignore the fact that the population may have already died off, and we have no way of testing for the presence of the bacteria in question. The only way to ensure a continued presence of the bacterial population is to redose zeobac when dosing zeofood. Seems quite obvious, really. Ok I admit I was wrong there. Oh. My. God. I expect we'll see more of these types of admissions going forward. Feels good, doesn't it? Luck that there is always a continual supply of this food You have no idea what strain of bacteria we're dealing with, or what it considers food. How can you possibly make this claim? 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. I don't think many are surprised by your inability to answer the question. It's fairly straightforward: without knowing the bacteria involved, their food source, or their life cycle, how do you have any credibility in determining that zeobac does not need to be periodically redosed? In order to answer the question, you need to provide the specifics of how the bacteria survive, flourish, and potentially die out, based on multiple factors within a closed marine environment. For every species of marine bacteria. A single example otherwise is sufficient to refute your argument that there is no species in zeobac that would ever need to be redosed. Good luck. Arthur

I don't see any proof yet. No admission until I understand why I may be wrong. OK, let's make it simple. You claim: continually adding bacteria is pointless. A pair of microbiologists propose at least a couple theories as to why continual dosing might be necessary. I'll let them put it in their own words: First theory: Remember, we are specifically dealing with chemolithotrophs (present in zeobak), therefore they may not be able to live with out a specific nutrient being available. When you begin zeovit, the aquarium keeper is doing so because he has high “bad†nutrients (for corals) present and wants to remove them. Setting up the zeobak bacteria in the tank will act to remove these “bad†nutrients, and over time, after the bacteria have done their job, they will be limited in their growth (and maybe die) because the nutrient they need has been removed. By adding zeobak continuously you are helping to maintain the equilibrium if one species disappears over time, and in the process, keep the nutrient limited environment created for the corals present (just in case the increased nutrient environment occurs again). Remember, you are just using the bacteria as a tool, to help the corals! Second theory: Zeobak provides food for corals as stated in the zeovit guide. Constant replenishing of the bacterial populations will help in keeping this food source robust and available. You could say that the bacteria present in the tank will provide the bacteria needed, and this may be correct. But the zeobak bacteria may be the "prime rib" that is not present in the tank normally? and we all know that eating prime rib everyday will make us grow and become big and happy!!! And finally: Maybe there are recombinant strains in there. For the non-biologists, this means that there may be strains of bacteria with multiple copies of certain metabolic enzymes. Increased copies of enzymes would result in greater rates of reaction. Or you could have a given bacteria doing a reaction it couldn't do before. Totally "out there" in this context, but really not a very complicated or unlikely alternative, in my opinion. This could possibly confound the results because although one could ID the bugs, you couldn't detect the transgene(s) unless you knew what you were looking for. I know it sounds wacky, but it's really not hard to make recombinant strains. It's actually pretty old technology. So there are theories that indicate a need to redose bacterial populations. Are they true? I don't know. But they directly refute your assertion that bacteria would never need to be continually redosed. It seems fairly simple to show that your assertion that there could be no reason to have to continually redose zeobac is incorrect. Arthur

What if zeobac is not the critical part of the system? But Layton, based on logic, you don't get to play that game. Your supposition is that dosing zeobac continuously can have no effect on the system. All I have to do is show you various environments in which continuing to dose bacteria might be necessary. Since you have no real knowledge of what is in zeobac, you can't say that the bacteria in the bottle don't act the way some of those other bacterial populations do. And very specifically, you do not get to say things like "Well, what if zeobac is what I say it is? Then it won't work!" You don't know what it is, you don't know what bacteria it contains, and you know nothing about the life cycle of the bacteria found; you therefore have no way of saying that it must work the way the common nitrifying bacteria you're used to do, and not the way that some other bacteria do. Well, not rationally. Sorry, but how can you summise that because the manufacturer recommends continual dosing, the metabolism of whatever bacteria is in zeobac is relatively slow? I don't have to. I simply have to point out that there are bacteria that act that way. You claim that zeobac simply can't work that way; how do you come to that conclusion when there are obviously bacteria that do, and you don't know which bacteria is in zeobac? 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. Which bacteria? You don't know what's in zeobac; are you now representing that you can categorically state that nothing in the bottle could possibly act the way the microbiologists describe other bacteria do, and thus zeobac can't work? How can you say that with any confidence? 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? I don't have to. It is incumbent on you to show why zeobac simply CAN'T work, since that is your supposition. Without knowing what's in the bottle, and knowing that there are bacteria out there that DO work in that way, how can you categorically state that the bacteria in zeobac DON'T? You can't, of course. Or at least, you shouldn't, if you want to retain credibility in the discussion. 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? Because they perform a function for us. Is it not possible that at least one of the strains binds with phosphates, but only when its food source (zeofood) is available? Are you qualified to say that is not possible, when at least two microbiologists believe it is? You already have bacteria to reduce phosphate in your tank. Why are your phosphate levels high? You seem to be implying that all bacteria are the same. That seems to be the downfiall to your entire premise, and may be something you want to rethink. Yip, because I have been talking about the insignificant effect of continual dosing on populations. Zeofood has no bearing on this. You don't know what zeobac contains, you don't know what zeofood contains, you have no idea how they interact, and yet you feel qualified to make that statement? Amazing. Quote: Back in August you were quite convinced the zeolites did nothing, were inert. In the traditional use of zeolites they don't. That is unbelievably specious arguing. That is NOT what you said. You said in August, and I quote: I believe that the zeolite addes nothing to the system. The same could be acieved by similar sized live rock in a reansonable flow environment.. perhaps even work better. There is no qualifier in that statement. There is nothing that indicates you were thinking "in the traditional use of zeolites". It was a blanket statement, and it's wrong. You know it's wrong, because in January you said that the "key to the system" is "zeolites and zeofood", along with good maintenance. So which is it? Do the zeolites do nothing for the system, or are zeolites one of the keys to the system? Which one of your statements is wrong? I'm pretty sure you know it was your original statement, because there have been experiments showing that replacing zeolites with live rock, bio balls, etc., does not have anywhere near the same effect as using zeolites. If you were wrong then in your blanket, unqualified statement, why are you so certain now that you're right about zeobac? Quite simple. All living things have requirements, if those are met they will live and reproduce. But you don't know the living things involved, you don't know their requirements, and you don't know how they live and reproduce. How are you able to so solidly draw conclusions about the use of zeobac? Arthur you shouldn't take peoples word for things. Do a bit of research to confirm and check what you are saying. But Layton, you don't seem to have done any research at all. Your conclusion is drawn based on your limited understanding of standard nitrifying bacteria in a tank. 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. I won't be surprised that you can't. There are several cases of users that stopped using zeobac in the system only to see their detected phosphate levels rise. About 6 weeks ago, my zeobac, nearly depleted, went bad unbeknownst to me. The only indication was a rise in phosphates...not huge, only to around 0.06 - 0.07 over a period of a week (I test twice a week). It was then that I found the last dregs of zeobac in the bottle had a funny smell, and replaced the zeobac. I did not replace anything else, and wasn't scheduled for a zeolite replacement for a few weeks, yet within a week of dosing the new zeobac, phosphates went back to their normally low levels. Nothing else changed. But again, observations aren't even necessary in this case. Your blanket statement is that continually dosing zeobac can't have any effect. How can you possibly defend that statement given that there are environments where dosing bacteria continuously would have an impact, and given that you don't know what strains of bacteria are in zeobac? Arthur

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. But I didn't say that. In fact, we only replace 90% of the media, so it wouldn't be possible for me to make that claim. I'm not sure why you're trying to say I did. However, if the population is decimated, literally, by a 90% replacement of the zeolites, it is not out of the question that dosing zeobac and zeofood can help replenish the population quite a bit more quickly than simply waiting. 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. But conditions in a reeftank can change quite dynamically. The growth rate and life cycle of the bacteria involved may be drastically different than the common nitrifying bacteria to which you've been exposed. Since you don't know what type of bacteria is involved, and you have no idea what zeofood contains, how is it possible for you to make blanket statements about the viability of those bacterial populations? Speaking of the rules of logic, I'm afraid you've taken quite a difficult position. You believe that zeobac does nothing. In order for your premise to fall apart, one must simply provide a single theory that disputes the contention. Unfortunately, you have no idea what is in zeobac, or how it interacts with zeofood, which is dosed at the same time. As such, all one need do is show a theory that would explain a dynamic bacterial population that needs replenishment (e.g. redosing) in order to have an effect on external parameters (e.g. reeftank nutrients). I don't even need a reeftank example to do it. Your body is a veritable treasure trove of bacteria. Exposure to additional bacteria of a species already present in your body can potentially cause an equilibrium in your body to tilt in one direction or another, causing illness. How could that happen with your body already in equilibrium with the bacteria strain in question? Why would "redosing" in that case have any effect whatsoever? I haven't even bothered bringing in the theory proposed by the microbiologist from Cornell re: recombinant strains of bacteria because likely it won't even be necessary; there are enough mundane examples of bacterial life cycles that dispute your assertion that additional dosing of previously-dosed bacteria to a dynamic system (such as a reef tank or a human body) will do nothing. Logically, you're attempting to prove a negative, which is already difficult enough, and you're doing it with no actual knowledge of the bacteria involved or the zeofood ingredients. Good luck. Btw, it's late for me here, so I'll be heading off to bed. I look forward to your replies tomorrow. Arthur

Ah, ah, ah...doesn't work like that. You state that continued zeobac dosing does nothing, IYO. I present 3 theories as to why it might be necessary, given that we know next to nothing about the strains of bacteria involved. It's your turn now to explain why those three can't possibly be true. So far, all I've heard is "well, our other bacteria don't work that way, so it's unlikely". Basically, you feel it's unlikely that the bacteria would grow mostly on zeolites, and that they can't die off if their food source/nutrient is depleted because there will always be a trace, just like our tanks don't show ammonia after cycling. Both of those suppositions are based on your experience with the common bacteria in our tanks, which is not likely what is in zeobac. I'm hoping you have more than that, and that you have a good understanding of the variations in bacterial populations and their life cycles. I have a little, but since I wanted to make sure, I've consulted experts in the field; I assume you'll do the same? Anxiously awaiting your reply. Arthur

I'll have a field day on this later, tonight. No time right now. Brace yourself. Excellent. I'll line up my microbiologists, and you line up yours. We'll have a nice, civil discussion. Since my PhD is in Computer Science, and you're in school for electrical engineering, I assume we'll want to make sure we're vetting our theories appropriately through qualified personnel. Arthur

Hi, Eric... Our problem is that we are dealing with unknown strains of bacteria, serving unknown functions. As such, there is really no way for people to be even reasonably sure that dosing zeobac continually is unnecessary, since they have no idea what it's supposed to do. There are at least 3 theories that would require the dosing needed in zeovit. I don't know the policy here re: posting links to other forums, but if it's allowed, I can post threads showing the results of testing by a microbiologist at Cornell University, and threads showing that he and other microbiologists believe the above theories are viable. Layton attempts to compare the bacteria with our "standard" nitryifying bacteria he's had experience with, and that perhaps is quite a false comparison. There are all sorts of bacteria, and the odds that zeobac contains highly viable common strains of bacteria are low; if they were that common and that viable, no one would have phosphate problems. Arthur

On your first point, it is highly unlikely that this bacteria are limited exclusively to the zeolite. And you base this on what, exactly? I have two microbiologists saying this is possible. If you have credentials or sources, I think now would be the time to bring them out. You have no idea what bacteria are present in zeobac, and there are species of bacteria that show affinity for narrow varieties of media to grow on. And again it is highly unlikely than in changing out the zeovit you are going to remove every last organism. I don't think that's a prerequisite to wanting to renew the population with dosing after removal of the zeolites. If the metabolism of the bacteria is relatively slow (as shown by the two weeks of daily dosing to build it up when a tank first starts using zeovit), daily redosing of the tank after removal of the zeolites could help rebuild the population dramatically. My point is is that there will be more than enough bacteria to re-establish populations faster than you could add it. And again, I'd like your source for this, especially considering you have no idea which bacteria we're talking about. There are all sorts of bacteria, with all sorts of metabolisms, optimal growth conditions, etc. If (and I say if) the bacteria biofilm shows an affinity for the zeolites, removal of 90% of the rocks after 6 weeks could impact the population drastically, and daily dosing of the bacteria could help rebuild the population just as it helped them get established in the first two weeks of adding zeovit to the tank. 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 Not true. As the microbiologists explained, conditions in a reeftank are very dynamic; it is quite possible for a species of bacteria to be limited or outcompeted one day, yet find an ample food supply a few days later. Adding zeobac periodically can certainly help reestablish bacterial populations in a tank, especially since the food source (nutrient) may have started climbing again after it was severely reduced days earlier. And once again, since you have no knowledge of the strains of bacteria present in zeobac, it is impossible for you to have any sort of certainty about whether they would need to be redosed based on the above supposition. Also just because a system is nutrient limited (ie test results show low values) Test results have nothing to do with. If a population of bacteria effectively utilize a nutrient, say phosphate, in a closed environment, the population will drop dramatically, possibly to the point of being effectively wiped out. If the nutrient rises over the next few days, it is quite possible that redosing will allow the population to reblossom and utilize it, whereas without it the population might not reblossom at all. While that may not be true for all species of bacteria, such as the nitrifying bacteria commonly in our tanks, it certainly could be true of unknown bacterial populations that are effective in reducing phosphates - if they are so commonly available and viable, we'd already have them in our tanks. We don't, because we fight phosphates, perhaps because we don't have an additional rate-limiting component commonly in our tanks, which may be where the zeofood comes in. 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. Meaning you agree it's possible, I assume? You are also ignoring the dosing of zeofood...it is also quite possible that the bacteria need an additional food source along with the nutrient in the tank, available in zeofood, that will limit them, such that dosing the zeofood and zeobac keeps the population stabilized. I also notice you completely ignore the SPS food aspects that might be a part of the zeobac equation. The point is, all of these are viable theories as to the metabolism and life cycle of bacteria that could serve a purpose in our tanks. They've all been vetted as viable by at least two microbiologists not associated with zeovit. I think at this point that we would need more than your suppositions to explain why they can't possibly be true. If you have an actual explanation that would eliminate all 3 of these, we'd like to hear it. Words like "highly unlikely" don't mean much when you are discussing unknown bacterial organisms, especially without science to back them up. Back in August you were quite convinced the zeolites did nothing, were inert. Now they do everything in this system, and the zeobac does nothing. I assume you changed your stance because you finally did some research to show you were wrong about the zeolites; is it not possible you're now wrong about zeobac/zeofood, especially since you know less about its contents than you did about zeolites? JMHO... Arthur

Too quiet. Layton, you've asked quite a bit about adding bacteria to an existing tank, and having to do so continually. Your implication (heck, your direct statement ) has been that there is no way it could be of any value. I don't understand why you believe that. Zeobac has been shown to contain several strains of bacteria, by a qualified non-zeo-using microbiologist; if the bacteria is not established in a reeftank, dosing is required to introduce, of course. In fact, if one is introducing new strains of bacteria to a tank, it would best be done over a period of time, building up the population, requiring dosing over a period of time of at least a few weeks. The question then turns to having to keep dosing going forward; i.e. why wouldn't the populations become established and not require continued dosing? There are several possible reasons for this: - If there is a strong relationship between the bacteria and the zeolites in terms of where the bacteria have an affinity to grow in a biolfilm, changing out the zeolites every 4-6 weeks would require rebuilding the population. Depending on the metabolism of the bacterial strains involved, daily dosing after the zeolites are exchanged could greatly improve reestablishment. - If zeobac is composed of multiple species, and there is a balance going on that could tilt within a tank depending on which nutrient or food source was a limiting component for growth of one or more of them, it is possible that the zeobac needs to be regularly dosed to replenish a dead population before the balance is tilted. That is, if there are 2 species in the mix, and one of them or an existing tank population outcompetes the other and kills it off over a few days, redosing zeobac would reset the playing field, allowing both to restart and maintaining a balance. As the microbiologist explained, "We are specifically dealing with chemolithotrophs (present in zeobak); therefore they may not be able to live with out a specific nutrient being available. When you begin zeovit, the aquarium keeper is doing so because he has high “bad†nutrients (for corals) present and wants to remove them. Setting up the zeobak bacteria in the tank will act to remove these “bad†nutrients, and over time, after the bacteria have done their job, they will be limited in their growth (and maybe die) because the nutrient they need has been removed. By adding zeobak continuously you may be helping to maintain the equilibrium if one species disappears over time, and in the process, keep the nutrient limited environment created for the corals present (just in case the increased nutrient environment occurs again)." - Zeobak may provide food for SPS corals as stated in the zeovit guide. Constant replenishing of the bacterial populations will help in keeping this food source robust and available. You could say that the bacteria present in the tank will provide the bacteria needed, and this may be correct for much of the food source, but the zeobak bacteria may be a food source that is not present in the tank normally, which flourishes for a short while due to the food source zeofood being added, but which needs replenishment periodically. Since we can't easily test for bacterial levels in the tank, redosing periodically with zeobac along with zeofood ensures repopulation if the bacteria is severely depleted. So apparently there are at least a couple of viable theories as to why one would need to dose zeobac/zeofood in a tank just starting zeovit, and why continued dosing would be necessary. Arthur