salt mix

[chimera]

According to Lars Sarbella, zeolite added 3.45 uM/Kg in 47 days

Oh, you mean the test he did in 1998 (almost 8 years ago?) oh, and considering the number of different zeolites out there, was it the same one zeovit uses as they vary in composition considerably. i've tried searching on the web for this but only result from google is a single link back to you talking about it on fnzas. Is it in a book? If so, which one.

From what i've read, the opposite happens. Increased zooxanthellae density can result in a drop in calcification rates.

reference?

[lduncan]

Oh, you mean the test he did in 1998 (almost 8 years ago?)

Yip. The zeolite appears to have the same "impurites" as before. The blue green and orange colours come from a specific element. There are only a limited number of element, which produce these colours, in stable compounds.

reference?

Do I have to do all the work around here? Here is one:

Marubini F. and P. S. Davies 1996, "Nitrate increases zooxanthellae population density and reduces skeletogenisis in corals."

I think these one touched on it too (from memory):

Weis V. M., Smith G. J., and Muscatine L. A 1989, "CO2 supply" mechanism in zooxanthellate cnidrians: Roles of Carbonic Anhydrase.

Hoegh-Guldberg O., and Smith G. J. 1989 "Influence of the population density of zooxanthellae and supply of ammonium on the biomass and metabolic characteristics of the reef corals Seriatophora hystrix and Stylophora pistillata."

[chimera]

Nitrate increases zooxanthellae population density and reduces skeletogenisis in corals."

so which is it, are we talking about zoox increase caused by nitrate or zoox increase caused by other factors? dont recall anything about nitrate in our discussion and most of us have no detectable levels of nitrate in our tanks.

The zeolite appears to have the same "impurites" as before

"appears to have" or "does have" ??? which is it? oh, and a link to the "new" test results would be good.

no offence layton but you seem to be digging yourself a larger hole. if you can provide hard core evidence rather than quoting information from tests done almost a decade ago, then you might have better evidence to prove "your" theory. oh, and im not scientifically minded nor do I admit to be. you may have some valid points but you just need to back them up a little better rather than taking what someone wrote and advancing on it based on your own theories.

[lduncan]

which is it?

Exactly what I said "appears to have". We could investigate the other options if you like? Copper would be one, cobalt another...

I'd put my money on it being mainly iron though.

oh, and a link to the "new" test results would be good.

Search RC for info on what and how Habib tested, you may also come across a link to the Lars test there too. I think I read recently it had been taken off the internet though... no reason as to why though.

[chimera]

I think I read recently it had been taken off the internet though... no reason as to why though.

possibly because it was proven invalid in a later test? and btw, im not trying to prove you wrong and me right, just trying to get my head around how you come to half your conclusions.

[lduncan]

so which is it, are we talking about zoox increase caused by nitrate or zoox increase caused by other factors? dont recall anything about nitrate in our discussion and most of us have no detectable levels of nitrate in our tanks.

The reasoning Aged Salt gave as to why iron increased growth was because it caused an increase in zoox density, which would correspond to increased growth.

Scientists say that increased zoox density reduces calcification:

diffusion-limited supply of CO2 from surrounding seawater is used preferentially by the enlarged zooxanthellae population for Photosynthesis, thereby reducing the availability of inorganic carbon for calcification.

Sometimes people sort something out in their head, that is logical and makes sense to THEM. But then when you actually look around for evidence, the results can tell a very different story.

I don't think you could make suggestions that the test was removed because it was invalid. It's like suggesting it was removed due to legal pressure from the manufacturer...

I guess the main inconsistency I see is that corals show signs of colouring up despite indicators that the tank is still high nutrients.

Also the claim that tissue lost which may occur is due to a fast reduction in nutrients. When clearly the rate at which particular nutrients are dropped is much much slower that what occurs when you perform a water change.

Also the claim that low absolute levels of phosphate can cause TN. From the Redfield Ratio, it is my opinion that it is going to be extremely difficult to obtain the low levels of phosphate required to have this effect when phosphorous is so tightly cycled in tanks, and with feeding and extensive use of plastics throughout tank plumbing and equipment. Organisms often have pools (reserves) of those elements which are usually in limited supply, so these would also have to be exhausted before TN would occur due to this mechanism.

Layton

[chimera]

The reasoning Aged Salt gave as to why iron increased growth was because it caused an increase in zoox density, which would correspond to increased growth

and from what i have read, an increase in zoox does cause an increase in growth. however an "over populated" increase in zoox density can cause the opposite.

diffusion-limited supply of CO2 from surrounding seawater is used preferentially by the enlarged zooxanthellae population for Photosynthesis, thereby reducing the availability of inorganic carbon for calcification

you are not comparing apples to apples and adding other factors into the argument. to me this is stating that "diffusion-limited supply of CO2" is the cause, not increased density of zoox. are most tanks limited in supply of CO2 to cause this?

[lduncan]

and from what i have read, an increase in zoox does cause an increase in growth. however an "over populated" increase in zoox density can cause the opposite.

Don't know what you're reading but by what was found in the paper above, any increase in zoox density will reduce the diffusion rate of carbon to the calcification site, reducing growth rates.

Think of it as varying the opacity of a filter, but with carbon as opposed to light.

[wasp]

Sometimes people sort something out in their head, that is logical and makes sense to THEM. But then when you actually look around for evidence, the results can tell a very different story.

Layton

Tell me about it! Layton I see you do it all the time.

and from what i have read, an increase in zoox does cause an increase in growth. however an "over populated" increase in zoox density can cause the opposite.?

Right on!

you are not comparing apples to apples and adding other factors into the argument. to me this is stating that "diffusion-limited supply of CO2" is the cause, not increased density of zoox. are most tanks limited in supply of CO2 to cause this?

Right on again!

Layton I've just been listening to some old Black Sabbath stuff I dusted off from way back. There's a song used to be one of my favourites they must have met you before they wrote it - "Iron Man" :lol:

[lduncan]

Sometimes I wonder whether you just argue with me for the sake of it.

I guess Marubini and Davies just made that stuff up.

you may have some valid points but you just need to back them up a little better rather than taking what someone wrote and advancing on it based on your own theories

I don't see many other people backing any statements with papers, and real research.

But that doesn't bother me, it's just when people insist the papers i reference are wrong, yet don't say why or provide references as to why.

It makes threads like this retarded. So, if you want to debate something, at least have a valid point, or better yet, some material to back it up.

Layton

[jetskisteve]

Sometimes I wonder whether you just argue with me for the sake of it.

LET IT GO THEN

[wasp]

Sorry Layton I'd have to go with Steve on that, it is always you who brings up your iron theory at EVERY opportunity.

Why do I argue? Well I've let it pass a few times, but often it just irks me too much to see you posting this misleading and likely false theory.

[lduncan]

it is always you who brings up your iron theory at EVERY opportunity.

I didn't randomly bring it up.

[Pies]

Blah. This reminds me of the wasp/layton Zeovit thread, pie/layton DSB discussions, ZeovitNZ/Layton threads. There is a single common denominator to the dross.

Pie

[lduncan]

Sorry, all the references I have must be wrong, obviously all the research was performed by incompetent scientists. So I'll spare you the trouble of telling you something you don't want to hear for whatever reason.

Like I said, sometimes I wonder why I bother sharing this info. A lot of people obviously have no desire to understand what happens in their tanks.

But still, i'd be interested in any research which contradicts what I have presented. So if you come across any, fire it my way.

Layton

[tel]

very very interesting........i didnt know you could do cool red capital script on these posts.how did you do it steve? :lol:

[Jimmy]

Just select the font colour.

[chimera]

Sorry, all the references I have must be wrong, obviously all the research was performed by incompetent scientists. So I'll spare you the trouble of telling you something you don't want to hear for whatever reason.

Like I said, sometimes I wonder why I bother sharing this info. A lot of people obviously have no desire to understand what happens in their tanks.

But still, i'd be interested in any research which contradicts what I have presented. So if you come across any, fire it my way.

Layton

you still dont get - its not a personal attack. its an attack on the WAY you bring across your debate. you take evidence that is factual to a certain extent, but the evidence you produce is altered some what by another factor. its that other factor that takes away what you think is concrete evidence. its like saying cream is made of whipped up milk and sugar. but by adding the sugar you're making icecream (ok, a lame comparison but you get the idea)

[lduncan]

So what is it about the mechanism presented in that paper which makes it such that makes it irrelevant here?

...diffusion-limited supply of CO2 from surrounding seawater is used preferentially by the enlarged zooxanthellae population for Photosynthesis, thereby reducing the availability of inorganic carbon for calcification

It is saying that the result of enlarged zooxanthellae populations is that the diffusion rate of CO2 from surrounding water to the calcification site is reduced, because of zooxanthellae are using it in photosynthisis. Experimentally this resulted in reduction of calcification.

No twisted of facts, extrapolations or anything you and wasp claim.

Layton

[lduncan]

Blah. This reminds me of the wasp/layton Zeovit thread, pie/layton DSB discussions, ZeovitNZ/Layton threads. There is a single common denominator to the dross.

Pie

Chimera, you can't say that this isn't a direct dig at me.

[Pies]

Chimera, you can't say that this isn't a direct dig at me.

Its not a dig, its a fact.

Pie

[wasp]

I don't see many other people backing any statements with papers, and real research.

Layton

Don't see you produce one either. I'm still waiting for you to produce a paper that proves your theory, that the water in a zeovit tank is so high in iron that it kills the zooxanthellae.

All you ever do is reference that study from 1998 on a different zeolite that showed it leached iron.

But even then it was not shown there was enough iron in the water to kill the zooxanthellae.

You're always saying you back your arguments with research, but you never do. I suspect the reason is because there is no proof of your theory, and never will be.

[lduncan]

that the water in a zeovit tank is so high in iron that it kills the zooxanthellae.

I've never said that at all.

I'm still waiting for you to produce a paper that proves your theory, that the water in a zeovit tank is so high in iron that it kills the zooxanthellae.

That is not what i suspect may be happening at all, so why should I be trying to prove it?

[wasp]

We have established you are obsessed with iron. But to enable sensible debate, you must tell us what your theory is.

If you refuse to tell us your point, no point you bringing this iron thing up all the time. After all, you did say

if you want to debate something, at least have a valid point

Layton

[wasp]

It is saying that the result of enlarged zooxanthellae populations is that the diffusion rate of CO2 from surrounding water to the calcification site is reduced, because of zooxanthellae are using it in photosynthisis. Experimentally this resulted in reduction of calcification.

Layton

I see. So, according to you,

Too many zoos = low calcificatio / stunted growth

Too many zoos = brown coral

Logically therefore -

Brown coral = bad, no? :bounce: