Zeovit Spur 2

[Feelers]

I love these threads

Anyways, I can see where Laytons coming from - personally it would annoy me not to know what I was adding to the tank - just coz I'm a nosey bugger but also because I like to be informed. I also realise that the company obviously doesnt want to divulge its trade sectrets.

A question for Layton - what do you define as healthy? For me I spose the best indicator would be growth rates and colouration -(based on what I've been exposed to). However heaps of people have fast growing "brownies", but it would seem good colour is overall a better indicator, as I havent heard of many people with intense colours and halted growth.

Having a reasonable idea of the colour of ions - I'm geussing there's Fe2+ in the mix? Is this your geuss?

The thing I find interesting about this product is the rapid change it brings about. Its pretty nuts to think a colour change could occur within a days work, which makes the secret ingredients even more interesting.

Weird that acros dont seem to like it as much - so that would lead me to geuss that the chemistry of acros is different to the corals with the intense results. Are there any acro specific sensitivities that people are aware of?

What is the purpose of pigment production in corals anyway?

[Feelers]

So what would cause drastic changes to symbiots in such a short period time?

Ok so the symbiots are algae, but if the stuff is aiding the algae within the corals surely it would cause a bloom of the normal algaes about the tank too?

Is there an increase in skimmate from adding it?

To have an effect such a short amount of time perhaps its a plant hormone?

[lduncan]

What's defined as healthy? Well that's a difficult question. Much easier to spot what is not healthy. Oviously bleeching (although bleeching is not a descrete thing) and tissue recession are signs or poor health.

What can be confusing is that sometimes vivid colouration can come from bleeching:

There is also research floating around that suggests that corals growth can be independent of health. And of course polyp extension is a function of many variables so that can not be used to indicate coral health either. So there are few conclusive easy to use methods for knowing how healthy a coral is. However there are obvious clues shown when a coral is not healthy.

What's the purpose of pigment production in corals? Well it's pretty wide ranging. Some are photoprotective, others are from symbiots and their contents like chlorophyll etc.

Colour can come from more than just pigmentation. Colours of some corals can come from exotic methods such as the alignment and spacing of symbiots within the tissue producing a diffraction grating like effect resulting in the filtering of specific wavelengths of light.

Fe2+ is one thing I would guess along with one other similar element.

Layton

[lduncan]

Ok so the symbiots are algae

Dinoflangellates is a better description.

but if the stuff is aiding the algae within the corals surely it would cause a bloom of the normal algaes about the tank too?

Is there an increase in skimmate from adding it?

Depending on what local resources are available, the symbiosis can provide significantly different conditions to that in the general water column. Also the symbiots can have different demands than the typical problem algaes, as some are heterotrophs.

To have an effect such a short amount of time perhaps its a plant hormone?

I'm thinking more inorganic than that, more fertiliser.

Layton

[wasp]

I don't know what it is, but I do know it is not a fertilizer.

I also do not have a full understanding of how it works. It is one of the hardest Zeovit products to figure out, what seems obvious, is not in the end, the full story.

However, it does work. Just that is not good enough for everybody, and that's their business.

However it does bring out the colours, and after a few doses, growth rate is improved. Please nobody tell me better growth is not a sign of good health, that's ludicrous.

Also Layton no amount of argument from you is going to make Thomas Pohl hand over the recipe. You may as well give up if that's your plan, it won't happen. :lol: Doubt your guesswork is going to furnish the goods either, interesting as it is to speculate. It's all been tried before, by some very clever minds.

And to those who don't think it is fair we are not told what is in the Zeovit products, look at it like this. The inventor, Thomas Pohl, who makes his living from marine, has spent many years developing this product. Now at last he is able to make some money from it. Why would he hand the recipes to any Tom Dick or Harry who asked for it. If I had spent many years and much money developing something like this, I certainly would not be telling everyone how to make it.

Course I'd like to know, but there are very good reasons. The guy has done the work, and deserves the payoff.

[lduncan]

I don't know what it is, but I do know it is not a fertilizer.

What makes you say that? I don't see how you can say it's not if you don't know what it is. Do you have any reason to suspect it's not? The effects of it sure seem similar to me.

I also do not have a full understanding of how it works. It is one of the hardest Zeovit products to figure out, what seems obvious, is not in the end, the full story.

Honestly i think it is one of the easier ones to figure out.

However, it does work. Just that is not good enough for everybody, and that's their business. However it does bring out the colours, and after a few doses, growth rate is improved.

I don't dispute that. I'm more interested in HOW it does this rather than ignoring that part and repeating WHAT it does.

Please nobody tell me better growth is not a sign of good health, that's ludicrous.

Is it ludicrous? Why? Better growth is not ALWAYS a sign of good health.

Also Layton no amount of argument from you is going to make Thomas Pohl hand over the recipe. You may as well give up if that's your plan, it won't happen. :lol:

I don't know why you're focussed on this. I'm not expecting or trying to get an answer from him. Send me a bottle down and I could get a more reliable answer in a week or two. All i'm doing is noting peoples observations when they use this product, and speculating on what it's doing based on that.

Doubt your guesswork is going to furnish the goods either, interesting as it is to speculate. It's all been tried before, by some very clever minds.

So what are you getting at. Should we just not bother at all? So much for advancing the hobby.

And to those who don't think it is fair we are not told what is in the Zeovit products, look at it like this. The inventor, Thomas Pohl, who makes his living from marine, has spent many years developing this product. Now at last he is able to make some money from it. Why would he hand the recipes to any Tom Dick or Harry who asked for it. If I had spent many years and much money developing something like this, I certainly would not be telling everyone how to make it.

Course I'd like to know, but there are very good reasons. The guy has done the work, and deserves the payoff.

I'm not interested in any of this. Just the observations of people who use the product, and potential mechanisms behind what it does.

Layton

[ZEOvitANZ]

Not to sure what you have been sniffing "dogmatix" but I can't smell anything !

Brendan

[wasp]

I'm not interested in any of this.

Layton

Then why did you ask?

Every time I answer your questions, I get a response like that, or else more argument. I find it very discouraging to even answer your questions.

Also, you have been told many times that you will not be told the secret ingredients of the Zeovit products.

But you still come back and keep asking what's in it! How many more times will you have to be told before it sinks in?

Sometimes I don't even answer your questions because I've already answered the exact same question before, often more than once.

I think you just ask these questions to be argumentative.

[lduncan]

It's posts like that which drag the whole tone of these threads down.

Just incase you missed it the first time:

I don't know why you're focussed on this. I'm not expecting or trying to get an answer from him.

And in case you missed the meaning of the original question, it was "What do THEY say is in it." They give you a vague description of what makes up zeofood:

ZeoFood contains many elements including vitamins and amino acids which are utilized by corals.

But all i can see for zeospur is:

ZeoSpur 2 is also a product for the Zeovit system and one of the constant advancement of the system. It was copious tested by A. Girz, M. Trusheim, N. Bokr and our company. It is a result of practical experiences with extreme colorful corals of all species and collecting sources worldwide. The product MUST be added as described on the bottle: every 8 – 10 days 1 ml per 100 liters. The quantity has to be added at once. The product should not be overdosed. The exceeding result is shown 24 hours after adding. If the product is dosed with lower quantity nothing will happen. You will see no result in this way the product will not work. The product require exceeding dosage and it is not capable for people they do not have discipline. Dosage exact 1 ml per 100 liters every 8 – 10 days.

I was wondering if they had a similar description (albeit non specific) of what's in zeospur somewhere, like the do for zeofood.

So just to clear that up once and for all. I'm not focussed on them not giving a "recipe" as you put it. I'm interested in the product, it's effect, and the possible mechanisms behind it's effect.

So now that we are hopefully on the same page, these are the questions i've asked directly of you, which you haven't answered.

Why do you think it's not acting like a fertiliser?

Why is saying better growth is not always a sign of health ludicrous? This has been discussed before, so either it slipped your mind, you weren't paying attention, or you think I'm just making it up.

Layton

[wasp]

It's posts like that which drag the whole tone of these threads down. Layton

Bit rich coming from you Layton.

Let’s see… I guess low grade personal slurs such as the following will improve the tone of the thread. All this in only your last post……

you weren't paying attention

Just incase you missed it the first time

it slipped your mind

Of course, you are wrong in all 3 cases, in your desire to put me down, you leapt to the wrong conclusions again. It did not slip my mind. I do remember your so called “discussion†on zeospur, and as I recall you failed on that occasion to prove it is a fertilizer.

Still waiting for you to prove what you say, which reminds me that despite your repeated attempts over the last couple of years to discredit Zeovit, you have never been able to prove one thing that contradicts what Zeovit say about their product….

You say you hope we are now “on the same pageâ€. These types of insidious remarks you aim at me, that seem to creep into a lot of your posts, are not a clever way to get me “on the same pageâ€.

None the less, I am a forgiving fellow and will move past this as I normally do, to your questions.

these are the questions i've asked directly of you, which you haven't answered.

You appear to think I have to answer every question you ever ask. Please understand that while I am happy to answer genuine questions, I do not feel duty bound to come running and answer every question you ever ask. I may not have time, or may simply not be bothered. So, genuine questions I may answer. Questions that have been asked and answered before, I will likely not waste my time answering again, I do feel I’ve done enough of that type of thing with you. Plus questions that are asked to be argumentative, or to hint at some vague unproveable theory, I will likely not waste my time.

So, on this occasion you have asked mainly useful questions, here they are, with the answers -

And in case you missed the meaning of the original question, it was "What do THEY say is in it." They give you a vague description of what makes up zeofood: Layton

Asking what they say is in it, is asking what is in it, isn’t it! LOL. However, if you check what I said, I was not merely referring to this thread. I was referring to the many times over the last couple of years that you have asked what is in it, despite being repeatedly told this info will not be given to you. I do admire your persistence. However, sorry dude, you’re wasting your time.

I was wondering if they had a similar description (albeit non specific) of what's in zeospur Layton

That’s asking what’s in it, again, isn’t it? LOL. Useful question though!

I have not looked at the manual for quite a while, I got my own info on it from discussions with advanced users in the US, and Germany, who kindly relayed questions and answers, direct from the manufacturer. Of course, the recipe was NOT included. ( Ha Ha )!

Why do you think it's not acting like a fertiliser? Layton

As previously stated I do not know the recipe and cannot answer this from personal knowledge. However, following the last time you claimed it was acting as fertilizer, I had discussions via an intermediary with the manufacturer, who told me it was not acting as a fertilizer. No doubt you will not consider this “proofâ€, however, from my point of view, I have a choice to take your word that it acts as fertilizer, or the manufacturers word that it does not. I am going on the assumption that the people who make it, and have success with it, would know more.

Why is saying better growth is not always a sign of health ludicrous? Layton

I have seen claims ( nothing personal, this is from more than one person, in the days when Zeobashing was a popular pastime for some), that Zeovit corals may look good and grow well because they are being poisoned. This claim is unproved, and does not stack up. I still think ludicrous is a fair description. Even leaving the aquarium, and moving to the garden, if I plant something and it grows well and looks good, I will be pleased, and believe it is healthy.

I will give you that there may be some bizarre and rare exception, but this will certainly be the general rule.

you think I'm just making it up.Layton

On this occasion, no. Other than your wrong assumptions about me (don’t pay attention, etc…) I don’t think you made anything up. Generally a good post.

Hope this is some help, just don’t ask what the ingredients are again LOL !

Cheers!

[lduncan]

Bit rich coming from you Layton.

Let’s see… I guess low grade personal slurs such as the following will improve the tone of the thread. All this in only your last post……

Of course, you are wrong in all 3 cases, in your desire to put me down, you leapt to the wrong conclusions again. It did not slip my mind. I do remember your so called “discussion†on zeospur, and as I recall you failed on that occasion to prove it is a fertilizer.

Still waiting for you to prove what you say, which reminds me that despite your repeated attempts over the last couple of years to discredit Zeovit, you have never been able to prove one thing that contradicts what Zeovit say about their product….

You say you hope we are now “on the same pageâ€. These types of insidious remarks you aim at me, that seem to creep into a lot of your posts, are not a clever way to get me “on the same pageâ€.

I'm not interested in any of this. If you want to continue to degrade the thread, that's your decision. I'm interested in the products effects, and possible reasons for it.

So, on this occasion you have asked mainly useful questions, here they are, with the answers -

As previously stated I do not know the recipe and cannot answer this from personal knowledge. However, following the last time you claimed it was acting as fertilizer, I had discussions via an intermediary with the manufacturer, who told me it was not acting as a fertilizer. No doubt you will not consider this “proofâ€, however, from my point of view, I have a choice to take your word that it acts as fertilizer, or the manufacturers word that it does not. I am going on the assumption that the people who make it, and have success with it, would know more.

It certainly isn't proof, infact it's not even evidence that it doesn't act as a fertiliser. Your choice is to to look at the evidence and observations available, and ask whether the description of fertiliser fits it, or alternatively take the word of people who are in discussion with the manufacturer. Going buy their staunch stance on not releasing information on what their products contain, do you expect them to confirm such a question. Like people have said it could jeopardise their revenue. Which is why you really have to focus on what the product does, and go from their.

So I'll rephrase the question. Is there any way you could completely rule out fertilisation as a possible mechanism for this product, based on the observations of users? If so, what is this evidence?

I have seen claims ( nothing personal, this is from more than one person, in the days when Zeobashing was a popular pastime for some), that Zeovit corals may look good and grow well because they are being poisoned. This claim is unproved, and does not stack up. I still think ludicrous is a fair description. Even leaving the aquarium, and moving to the garden, if I plant something and it grows well and looks good, I will be pleased, and believe it is healthy.

I will give you that there may be some bizarre and rare exception, but this will certainly be the general rule.

You know everything around the workings of zeovit is unproven. Even much of the stuff posted on zeovit.com. It likely will not be proven, as there is little incentive, other than personal interest for it to be, it requires significant resources to do such a thing. That is why there are simply discussions on possible mechanisms. So instead of throwing the word proof around, focus on validity of hypothesis and theory, based on known information, and observations. Proving something scientifically is not a trivial task, and many peoples idea of proof would not stand up to rigourous scientific scrutiny.

Moving to to growth. Based on current research it is not always a reliable bioindicator of health. I've posted why I said this before, but here is more:

the literature provides conflicting evidence of the effects of stress on coral skeletal extension rates. For example, though a number of workers (e.g., Hudson 1981, Cortes and Risk 1985, Rogers 1990) have suggested that massive corals demonstrate a decrease in growth rate under environmental stress such as increased siltation, Brown et al. (1990) found no apparent effect of increased sedimentation on growth rates of Porites on a reef in Thailand which had experienced significant coral mortality due to dredging. Still others (Tomascik and Sander 1985, Risk et al. 1995) report that corals from eutrophied and sedimented sites often demonstrate an initial increase in growth rate due to increased nutrient availability and the use of particulate matter as a food source (though corals on the most eutrophied sites in these studies did show a reduction in growth rates). Edinger (1991) has termed this the "Janus effect", whereby nutrient enhancement can increase coral growth rates up to a certain critical level, after which eutrophication becomes deleterious and growth rates decline.

In short, based on current knowledge, using growth to indicate coral health is about as valid as using polyp extension as a indicator of happiness. ie, it's not possible.

Layton

[cookie extreme]

I'm interested in the products effects, and possible reasons for it.

no your not. if you were you would use them and make up your own mind if the products are good or not. your asking questions with the intention to wind up some people (which seems to work). what positive have you come accross with any of the zeovit products in your (re :lol: ) search?

i am always willing to try a new product myself before i make a judgement (testing a new one at the moment)

[lduncan]

no your not. if you were you would use them and make up your own mind if the products are good or not. your asking questions with the intention to wind up some people (which seems to work). what positive have you come accross with any of the zeovit products in your (re :lol: ) search?

i am always willing to try a new product myself before i make a judgement (testing a new one at the moment)

Incorrect. First, I like to know what I'm to the tank (my personal philosophy, other people don't care, that's their prerogative). That's not what i'm discussing here however.

Second the intent of the questions is to get people thinking what the product does and how it does what it does based on reported observations. If that "winds people up", that not my intent nor is it my fault, as these are purely based on observed behaviour of the product, nothing more.

Layton

[cookie extreme]

maybe you should dicuss these question on Zeovit.com as a lot more people on that forum use it (not all of them, quite a few that are just there for the info). i reckon you would get a lot more questions answered there then here where most have never used it or don't know what it is all about.

[wasp]

Degrade the thread? That's rich coming from you Layton!! Why would I degrade my own thread?

If I was not such a nice guy I would be seriously insulted by what you have done to my thread.

You do it to every Zeovit thread.

Cookie is correct, you have no genuine interest in Zeovit.

[wasp]

Degrade the thread? That's rich coming from you Layton!! Why would I degrade my own thread?

If I was not such a nice guy I would be seriously insulted by what you have done to my thread.

You do it to every Zeovit thread.

Despite your never ending attacks on Zeovit, you have never proved anything. Why keep doing it?

Cookie is correct, you have no genuine interest in Zeovit.

[wasp]

Well the edit function does not seem to be working, I'll have to add another post.

Layton you have never proved anything about Zeovit. Can't see why continue carrying on like this, other than your love of argument.

You are not going to be told the recipe.

[lduncan]

You still don't get it wasp. I don't think i'm ever going to be told what is in the product. That's not what i'm trying to do here. See my last post re proof. I'm not trying to prove anything. Discussing how a product may work does not have to involve proof.

Was the intent of the thread to discuss the product? If so, that's what i've been doing.

Layton

[puttputt]

Wasp, editing has been removed, see updated rules from Warren

[wasp]

You still don't get it wasp. I don't think i'm ever going to be told what is in the product. That's not what i'm trying to do here. See my last post re proof. I'm not trying to prove anything. Discussing how a product may work does not have to involve proof.

Was the intent of the thread to discuss the product? If so, that's what i've been doing.

Layton

You have "discussed" the product for years. You read everything on Zeovit.com. Surely you know how it works by now?

Your so called "discussions" are really just arguing, which you enjoy.

I will give you that in this thread you have raised some seemingly genuine questions, however the general thrust as always is to call into question the integrity of the product.

Here is a typical example of the way you constantly try to question the integrity of the product, and the manufacturer.

do you expect them to confirm such a question. Like people have said it could jeopardise their revenue. Layton

Basically here you are accusing them of lying to get money. If you insist on making these attacks, you should prove it, but you never have.

I cannot believe your “discussions†are genuine. To be straight up, you are obsessed with attacking the product, and no doubt frustrated by the fact you are not fooling anyone.

[Feelers]

the literature provides conflicting evidence of the effects of stress on coral skeletal extension rates. For example, though a number of workers (e.g., Hudson 1981, Cortes and Risk 1985, Rogers 1990) have suggested that massive corals demonstrate a decrease in growth rate under environmental stress such as increased siltation, Brown et al. (1990) found no apparent effect of increased sedimentation on growth rates of Porites on a reef in Thailand which had experienced significant coral mortality due to dredging. Still others (Tomascik and Sander 1985, Risk et al. 1995) report that corals from eutrophied and sedimented sites often demonstrate an initial increase in growth rate due to increased nutrient availability and the use of particulate matter as a food source (though corals on the most eutrophied sites in these studies did show a reduction in growth rates). Edinger (1991) has termed this the "Janus effect", whereby nutrient enhancement can increase coral growth rates up to a certain critical level, after which eutrophication becomes deleterious and growth rates decline.

From that I dont see where it says growth rate isnt a good indicator of health -it implies that growth rates declining from over nutrification is bad. From how I read it nutrients increase growth rates till a point - and then a decline after said point.

If anything it seems that they were using growth rates as a measurement of coral health.

[lduncan]

I will give you that in this thread you have raised some seemingly genuine questions, however the general thrust as always is to call into question the integrity of the product.

Well i've presented observations which are accurate have I not? And then asked pertinent questions about those observations have I not? Maybe it shows that looking objectively at the observations it calls into question the integrity of the product in YOUR mind.

Here is a typical example of the way you constantly try to question the integrity of the product, and the manufacturer.

Basically here you are accusing them of lying to get money. If you insist on making these attacks, you should prove it, but you never have.

Actually I'm saying that you should take something you hear from the friend of a manufacturer with a large grain of salt. In Law it's referred to as hearsay. You and Cookie have said that they withhold information in order to protect their revenue, why would you expect them to give information when people ask, its the same principle is it not? What's MORE reliable is the direct observations from several independent users. And that this should be factored in to your thinking.

I cannot believe your “discussions†are genuine. To be straight up, you are obsessed with attacking the product, and no doubt frustrated by the fact you are not fooling anyone.

Why don't you think they are genuine? Attacking the product? How have I done that. All I've done is taken observations and asked questions about them, to get people thinking. You have been off in all sorts of other tangents for whatever reason.

Layton

[lduncan]

From that I dont see where it says growth rate isnt a good indicator of health -it implies that growth rates declining from over nutrification is bad. From how I read it nutrients increase growth rates till a point - and then a decline after said point.

If anything it seems that they were using growth rates as a measurement of coral health.

Basically what that passage was looking at was the process of eutrophication (a topic which is extremely pertinent to almost all closed system like aquaria). Basically, in this context, eutrophication is the process which puts coral reefs under increasing stress, and eventually leads to the death of corals.

So what they are saying in there is that during the beginning stages of eutrophication, ie early stages nutrient enrichment, corresponding to coral stress (and declining health) growth rates in some corals can increase. Where as other studies have shown that there is no change in growth rates in some corals under stress from massive fracturing, where other significant coral mortality had occurred. And still other studies have shown that decreases in growth rates have occurred in some corals under stress from siltation.

This was assembled by the Evironmental Protection Agency in the States as an investigation into creating a formal framework of bioindicators for monitoring reef health. Their summary is below:

Coral growth rate - Measurement of coral growth rates as an indication of water quality. Confused literature - some suggest growth rates decline with organic pollution, others suggest growth rates may increase. No formal interpretive framework.

So basically they say that it is too inconclusive to use as an accurate bioindicator of health.

Layton

[wasp]

So basically they say that it is too inconclusive to use as an accurate bioindicator of health.

Layton

Why post this stuff that proves nothing? You do that all the time.

For example the pages of stuff you posted during our phosphate "discussion" a while back. You were trying to prove that orthophosphate only exists when all other "sinks" are saturated, but nothing you posted proved that. Didn't stop you posting pages of stuff though.

Couldn't see your point myself, other than that you hoped maybe you might blind people with "science".

[wasp]

Attacking the product? How have I done that. Layton

Well since you asked......

Sometimes you are hysterical! To say you have not attacked Zeovit is ludicrous, your attitude to it has been obvious for years now.

You will not fool anyone trying to pretend you are neutral on the subject. Here are some of your typical subtle attacks on Zeovit, and attempts to attack the integrity of the manufacturer, that you have been doing for years.

There is so much crap surrounding zeovit it's just beyond a joke.

you should be asking the manufacturer why they are misleading you then.

why are you not just as suspicious of Thomas Pohl's? He at least has a strong motive for spreading misinformation.?

I question the reading comprehension of zeo users. Why they continually go round in circles chasing their tails over things.

I'm beyond caring what deluded zeo users think on this subject.Layton

You think the manufacturer has an understanding of how the system works? If they did they wouldn't be selling a product with the following warnings. Nor would they be changing the recommended dosages every few weeks.

I say, that continually dosing bacteria is pointlessLayton

The zeoguide is still wrong in it's claimLayton

does not work as described in the zeoguide.Layton

This is contrary to the claims made by the manufactures. Layton

Hardly the words of a neutral person with a “genuine interestâ€

Only since you asked And there's plenty more where they came from!

The good news though is there are some true statements, here are 3 of them :-

I admit I was wrong there.

I was wrong earlier. Layton

Previously saying something which is wrong in no way undermines what I am saying now though.Layton