lduncan Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 Yikes! You just did it AGAIN!!!!! Look what you just said! You said 'But I "know" that they are not those presented by the manufacturer" Please - What do I have to do to get you to proove anything you say? If you "know" it, proove it. If you have no evidence, you in fact don't know it. Darwin's research and observations can easily discount parts of the theory presented. As can pure logic. Also any reef in the world can prove one particular claim wrong on a daily basis. Layton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasp Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 I never said I knew what the mechanisms are. I see. Well, the truth comes out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lduncan Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 I see. Well, the truth comes out. Umm... I never claimed to know. I have said this all along. Like i said, I know what the mechanism AREN'T. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lduncan Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 wasp, what is your water change routine? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasp Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 Umm... I never claimed to know. I have said this all along. Like i said, I know what the mechanism AREN'T. Fact is, you don't know what they are, and you don't know what they aren't either. And mentioning Darwinian theory again prooves - well zip. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lduncan Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 Sorry. I don't know what the hell i'm talking about. I'm an idiot and i'll shut up now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasp Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 Well I didn't say that, I think you are someone who knows, because you know, because you know. Who of us should question that or ask for proof? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lduncan Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 I'm not saying take my word for it. Because you shouldn't. But it seems strange to me that you would easily and happily take the manufacturers word. Even when fundamental errors are pointed out. I've given enough information for you to do you're own research and find out for yourself why it won't work as described. The errors are fundamental and only require a small amount of thought to see why some claims are rubbish. It's more valuable that you see and understand for yourself why, rather than me tell you every single little detail as to why. I've given some serious starting points, now it should be easy to connect the dots. Layton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasp Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 Sheesh Layton, I've already given it some thought. I cannot think of any evidence at all that the system does not work as claimed. I've seen theories and unsubstantiated claims, but no proof. The nearest I've seen to proof is when a gram stain was done and no bacteria were found. But since then further work has been done and bacteria were found, as per the manufacturers claims. The bottom line, using this is an example, is that if it was prooved there were no bacteria, then I would accept the manufacturers claims are false. But none of his claims have been disprooved, I can't just throw the system out the window because you mention Darwin or whatever. Proof would do it though, ie, show there is no bacteria in zeobac, or something like that. But vague theories and mention of "logic" just don't cut it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lduncan Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 I'm not talking about whether there is bacteria in zeobak, or anything like that. Nor about other theories which may exist, including my own. I'm talking about korallen zucht's explainations of HOW the system works (not what's in it). The problems are: 1. Adding bacteria to a cycled tank. 2. Zeolites ion exchange properties in non-sterile salt water. 3. Explanations for tissue loss being put down to rapid decreases in nutrients. The problems are as fundamental as Darwin's research, which most people should have at least heard of, as well as logic. You still haven't answered my question. What is your water change routine? Layton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cracker Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 You two crack me up!! :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cracker Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 I could almost call you fish GEEKS!! :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lduncan Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 So wasp, where is your proof of the following? 1. Continual addition of bacteria to a cycled tank is benificial. 2. Rapid changes in nutrients (specifically nitrate and phosphate) cause tissue recession, or stress corals. I'd probably find it interesting reading. Layton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pies Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 1. Continual addition of bacteria to a cycled tank is benificial. The product 'CYCLE' claims this is a good thing. Personally I think cycle is a have but its a product that says 'add more bacterria. Do Zeovit mean addition of 'special bacteria' not garden varity bacteria? How about you 2 take a break and post some pics of your tank? Do a coral colour comparison or something so the rest of us can follow Piemania Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lduncan Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 After initial introduction of a new strain, the tank will determine whether it multiplies or is doomed to death. No matter how much more you add to the tank, it won't change the fact that if conditions are not right, it will not colonise. Layton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasp Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 So wasp, where is your proof of the following? 1. Continual addition of bacteria to a cycled tank is benificial. 2. Rapid changes in nutrients (specifically nitrate and phosphate) cause tissue recession, or stress corals. I'd probably find it interesting reading. Layton I don't have any proof for that for you. Thomas Pohl has stated that those things will apply in a zeovit system, but of course Layton you are not going to take his word are you :lol: Where I ask you to proove some of what you say is where you follow every post I make on the zeovit thread and say everything I said is wrong. I just thought it would be courtesy where you are saying I'm wrong, to back it up with some proof. Just so others could be assured you weren't mistaken or anything. If I outright told someone they were wrong, as you have to me dozens of times, I would certainly be prepared to proove it. If I could not, I would not be ignorant enough to tell the person they are wrong in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasp Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 You still haven't answered my question. What is your water change routine? Layton I don't really have a set routine. I replace what I syphon, and sometimes my skimmer will go nuts and poke out a few gallons, so I'll replace that. I don't do monthly water changes as such, although I suppose I should. So at best I'd do maybe 20% per month, but it would normally be much lower, I may even go several months with no water change. Why do you ask? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lduncan Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 So in a matter of less than an hour you drop your phosphate and nitrate levels by 20% right? When was the last time you saw tissue recession due to a water change? BTW i'm quite capable of proving why this is wrong. But why take my word for it? Research and find for yourself, i've given you a vague start so that it should be easy to find the information you need to convince yourself why these things don't occur. Quite frankly Thomas Pohl is the last person you should have blind trust in. His livelihood depends on his product. I on the other hand have no financial interest in the product either way. Layton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fay Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 I thought you are advised to do 5% waterchange weekly with zeovit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fay Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 Been running Zeovit for 5 months now<> result so far Nitrate 15 <>Phosphate 2 <> I've started to look at other ways. Have ordered Phosphate remover for a start, and cut my feeding down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasp Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 Layton, one of your issues is with the idea that zeovit bacteria should be dosed to an already cycled tank. Now I don't know why Pohl believes this should be done, other than his claim it is to maintain bacterial diversity and the correct "chain" of bacteria. However, I have a theory that may satisfy you. Lets say your own idea is correct, that zeovit employs the use of metal eating bacteria. Now I don't know what bacteria are in zeobac, but let's say these metal eating bacteria are included in the mix. As I assume you are aware, some of these metal eating bacteria are obligate chemolitotrophs, and as such are very vulnerable to being wiped from the bacterial flora in the tank by a temporay chemical shift such as may often happen in an average tank. If this is the case, it would make perfect sense to re-dose periodically. I believe this reason, or something similar, would explain the benefit of dosing zeobac. Personally I have never believed that allowing the bacterial flora in a tank to become a monoculture is a good thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasp Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 So in a matter of less than an hour you drop your phosphate and nitrate levels by 20% right? When was the last time you saw tissue recession due to a water change? BTW i'm quite capable of proving why this is wrong. But why take my word for it? Research and find for yourself, i've given you a vague start so that it should be easy to find the information you need to convince yourself why these things don't occur. Quite frankly Thomas Pohl is the last person you should have blind trust in. His livelihood depends on his product. I on the other hand have no financial interest in the product either way. Layton Did you think I said I did a 20% waterchange in an hour? you must have misunderstood. check the post again. Don't recall seeing tissue recession due to a waterchange, but as you know I've never had tissue recession anyway. Don't suddenly drop Po4 and No3, because I use NSW, it probably increases Po4 and No3 when I do a change. You say"I am quite capable of prooving this is wrong". Please don't tell me this any more, actually do it. If you can offer proof, I am happy to accept. You'll find that upon presentation of sound evidence, I become a very reasonable guy It's the unsubstantiated rubbish I have a problem with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasp Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 I thought you are advised to do 5% waterchange weekly with zeovit? To be honest, I'm not sure but I know your meant to do quite a lot. Guess I'm just lazy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cracker Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 Wasp, Your NSW water contains zero Po4 and NO3. I have tested it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lduncan Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 Lets say your own idea is correct, that zeovit employs the use of metal eating bacteria. Indirectly maybe. Now I don't know what bacteria are in zeobac, but let's say these metal eating bacteria are included in the mix. Highly unlikely. As I assume you are aware, some of these metal eating bacteria are obligate chemolitotrophs, and as such are very vulnerable to being wiped from the bacterial flora in the tank by a temporay chemical shift such as may often happen in an average tank. When was the last time your tank had an ammonia spike? What are the temparary chemical shifts going on in our tanks? Have you heard of a biofilm? If this is the case, it would make perfect sense to re-dose periodically. I believe this reason, or something similar, would explain the benefit of dosing zeobac. Personally I have never believed that allowing the bacterial flora in a tank to become a monoculture is a good thing. If this was the case, your tank would not be keeping much alive. Bacteria colonies would never stabilise, you would have all sorts of problems with ammonia nitrite nitrate and phosphate. What is becoming a monoculture? The most efficient bacteria to do the job will thrive, others will die for the simple fact that they are not good at their job. Constantly adding bacteria which YOU may want doesn't change that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.