ZEOVIT

[RnB]

to be honest Layton I sorta agree, you have often hinted that you think you know what is actually happening in a zeo system, but when pushed you just post, its obvious - read up - follow fundamentals etc.....

please can you in one post outline what you think is happening and why... I will not attack it, as i simply do not have an understanding of biology at this level. you obviously have the time to post long and complex arguments..... I would love to understand your position better but really at the moment i only understand that you do not believe that the zeo system can work the way the manufactures say it does. I have some theories myself, that its a simple binding mechanism going on.. I think the things added simply bind to the organics in the water coloumn making them easier to skim out, but hey i cannot prove that...

any ideas how it works then?

[lduncan]

If you would just admit that you were wrong to imply that there is no good reason to have to continually dose zeobac, we could be done with this inane conversation.

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

[Brianemone]

we do get lots of cool stuff, what do we miss out on??

i meant mainly fish and inverts (like crabs and snails), i think our coral selection is pretty good, if you are patient you can find it (generally)

[lduncan]

When you first started posting I seem to remember you saying that the zeobac wasn't necessary.

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.

That clearly shows you don't have a real understanding of all the mechanisms at play here.

It does not show that at all. Do you understand how zeovit works? If so, explain.

Layton

[AJL]

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

[RnB]

Arthur/wasp

I don't understand this system that well. My limited understanding is that you change the media every so often, have to have a good skimmer and do regular water changes (and dose). so there are only 3 ways that nutrients can actually be exported from the closed system....

skimate

zeolith media

water changes

I will for now assume they are not being bound to something like the rock in the tank but do actually get removed by some process.......

this may actually prove to be wroung but as i say I don't really understand the biology or chemistry at micro level....

I personally do not see how the water changes at such small levels could be exporting the nutrients as quickly as the test results show nutrients are dropping.. I do have an understanding of how small changes effect overall concentrations

so its either being skimmed out or its binding long term (until media change) to the zeo

do you have a personal opinion on this or is it possible that its a two part system, the zeolith binding the phosphate and the other part helping the skimate.... anything that changes the hydrophilic/hydrophobic nature of any organic in the coloum will help here.. could it be that the on/off flow over the zeolith does a bind process then a flush.... the flushed stuff then been skimmed......

sortof pumping nutrients out... this is personal hypothesis, tho obviously unproven. it would be interesting to see if anyone has claimed success with zeo without the on/off flow being done.

aurthe/wasp - i am trying to pump as much info out of you tweo as possible before you give up on layton and just disappear

[AJL]

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

[lduncan]

Zeolites help remove ammonia prior to its entering the nitrification process

How? You must have a reason for believing this.

I haven't seen a lot so far to demonstrate this theory is wrong, but I won't swear by it.

Good

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.

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?

[AJL]

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

[lduncan]

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?

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.

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.

I haven't actually, just a statement from you. Anyhow, how does this conflict with what I have said?

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.

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.

At this point, it's apparent that you're on the run...it's time to admit you don't have all the answers,

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.

[lduncan]

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.

So you have no reason whatsoever to believe that "zeolites help remove ammonia prior to it's entering the nitrification process"?

That is ignorant.

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

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?

[jetskisteve]

You did not use it correctly if i read your old posts correctly.

[AJL]

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

[lduncan]

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?

Your joking right? Last time I checked bacteria were not liquid, nor did they form crystals.

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.

Been done.

Look, if it's that simple, stop giving us Amazon links and just say it.

That's the point, it's not as simple as what you presented.

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.

No, what you have claimed is that zeovit can't work the way Pohl says it does.

Yip.

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.

[AJL]

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

[lduncan]

So you have no reason whatsoever to believe that "zeolites help remove ammonia prior to it's entering the nitrification process"?

is this true?

Do you think is is due to rapidly decreasing phosphate and nirtate, which stresses the corals?

do you think this is why?

[AJL]

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

[lduncan]

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.

Ok.

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?

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.

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?

[ZEOvitANZ]

Layton,

When you bought your zeovit, maybe you should have bought it from the official zeovit supplier here in NZ. That way I could have supported you and you might not of had the problems with the zeostart.

Sorry, had to say this, you will probably know why. I don't want people getting the wrong ideas.

Brendan Zeovit NZ/Aussie

[Fay]

Brendan hows the new baby whats her name

[lduncan]

Layton,

When you bought your zeovit, maybe you should have bought it from the official zeovit supplier here in NZ. That way I could have supported you and you might not of had the problems with the zeostart.

Sorry, had to say this, you will probably know why. I don't want people getting the wrong ideas.

Brendan Zeovit NZ/Aussie

I tried to get some from you, but for whatever reason i got no response. The fact is, it is not isolated to myself. Clearly the manufacturer knows of these problems, and has been making adjustments to their guide as they go.

Pies had problems at the same time as starting zeovit.

AgedSalt (RC Member) also had problems when starting zeovit.

And there are other reports as well. And the problems are clearly stated in the zeoguide. Why does it cause these problems?

To me it is not acceptable to say, "well if you start to see tissue recession, reduce the dosage", my response to this would be to say wait a minute, something doesn't add up here, why am I adding stuff to my tank, which results in tissue loss? What is it really doing. Because the guide gives no plausible explanation.

[wasp]

Layton in the last 25 pages I have not seen one shred of proof for any one of your claims.

[wasp]

Well I managed to purchase two sps corals at Massey Pets last Wednesday. I put them in my higher nutrient frag tank for two days, and they have now gone into the main, although not in the final position yet.

I am posting these as "before" pics, and it will be interesting to compare in a few months.

Doesn't show in the photo, but the top one does have a little pink to it, so I'm guessing that's how it will end up. The bottom one is not quite as faded as it appears in the photo.

Now I just have to hope they actually do colour up! Fingers crossed

[lduncan]

Layton in the last 25 pages I have not seen one shred of proof for any one of your claims.

Because I have not proved anything, nor attempted to. I have explained. Wasp you have not proved anything either. What is your point.

[lduncan]

What were the prices on those acros wasp?