• Why not take a moment to introduce yourself to our members?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Location
Upper East Side
Rating - 100%
21   0   0
Yes Randy, I think we are in agreement. I just think that Rich's article is a valuable jumping off point for discussion, not that he should have been more explicit about various products in it. :)

Rich, I will be very interested to hear what you vet has to say about flatworm exit. I read the box a long time ago and I do not remember any ingredients listed. There are no ingredients listed on the bottle and no ingredients listed on any of the web pages that sell it - just that it is nontoxic to everything but flatworms. 16oz of PraziPro is only about $30.00 compared to $20 for that little eyedropper bottle of flatworm exit.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I hope you didn't think that what I was saying!
Well, when I read the article I was waiting for an explanation that never came. Basically, how did you come to these conclusions?

My point was that you should have a neutral stance towards products/methods that people write about. And if we are trying new things because they are 'new' we need more evidence than 'my corals look better'. :D

Agreed, We've all been victims of advertising at some point. But the article basically left me with the belief thats its "ALL" BS. So, what are you using? I'm sure you've used something thats worked? You should be able to state this and the reasons why beyond "my corals look better".

I don't what you did to be on the receiving end of a legal nasty note, but there are ways to review a product and make the claims that you did and not find yourself in hot water. You might even find yourself with support from some of these companies by letting them know how their products are performing in the field. They may send test samples (for free) thus reducing costs, and also may send upcoming products in for review.

The problem with me I guess is that I already am a critical thinker and a skeptic. Thats why I was looking forward some sort of "evidence" to back up the article.
 

Thales

Advanced Reefer
Staff member
Vendor
Location
SFBA
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Well, when I read the article I was waiting for an explanation that never came. Basically, how did you come to these conclusions?

Which conclusions? I think you may be looking for something that is outside the scope of what this article was about.


Agreed, We've all been victims of advertising at some point. But the article basically left me with the belief thats its "ALL" BS. So, what are you using? I'm sure you've used something thats worked? You should be able to state this and the reasons why beyond "my corals look better".

Sorry that that was the impression you were left with. There is one sentence that does talk about products working. I'll take a look at it and see if I can see what you see. I think I thought that that was covered in the previous installment pretty throughly and didn't want to fall too much into the trap of series articles covering the same stuff over and over again.

I don't what you did to be on the receiving end of a legal nasty note, but there are ways to review a product and make the claims that you did and not find yourself in hot water. You might even find yourself with support from some of these companies by letting them know how their products are performing in the field. They may send test samples (for free) thus reducing costs, and also may send upcoming products in for review.

I sometimes do get product to look at. However, I am not set up to test any of the additives - that would be long and complex. Getting free sample to test can add to the perception of bias, so it needs to be avoided. There are ways to test things and protect yourself, and I think the way to really do it would be some type of testing group.

The problem with me I guess is that I already am a critical thinker and a skeptic. Thats why I was looking forward some sort of "evidence" to back up the article.

Like I mentioned up top, I am still not sure what you would like to see backed up - not trying to be obtuse, trying trying to understand. :D

Cool discussion!
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I don't think I understand what more you wanted out of the article. Could you clarify and I'll try to respond to your concerns? My hope was to put more tools in the reefers tool box, not to tell them what to do.
Like I said, I just wanted some evidence as to what didn't work and what did. You didn't provide it, so I'm wondering what "tools" I was given going forward. Common sense? As to what, "some products work better than others", "some don't work at all". I wonder if I have any of these products in my house? You said that you didn't want to tell people what to do, well maybe that is whats needed in many cases as that is the question many people have..."what do I do?" "Will this help?" Just read the forums, people are asking these very questions.

FWIW, I have been involved in reef keeping for at least 25 years at all levels of the industry, and now work as a biologist at a public aquarium.
Then your weight behind a review or testing of products would be far more credible than that of a hobbyist such as myself.

Those are all multi billion dollar companies with huge legal departments and protections in place - quite different from the small (but fantastic!) Reefs Magazine. :D
and you're a biologist who works at a public aquarium. You're telling me that if you test two different nitrate removing products per the company's guidelines, in the same size tank, with the same water, same temp, and all things being equal. Then post the results, that you're gonna get sued? C'mon. It happens all the time. I don't know how much influence you have there, but dropping and not recommending certain products for poor performance, while recommending others would go along way to educating people in what works and what to buy.
 
Last edited:

Thales

Advanced Reefer
Staff member
Vendor
Location
SFBA
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Like I said, I just wanted some evidence as to what didn't work and what did. You didn't provide it, so I'm wondering what "tools" I was given going forward. Common sense? As to what, "some products work better than others", "some don't work at all". I wonder if I have any of these products in my house? You said that you didn't want to tell people what to do, well maybe that is whats needed in many cases as that is the question many people have..."what do I do?" "Will this help?" Just read the forums people are asking these very questions.

Gotcha! I am pretty sure what you are looking for is outside the scope of the article. The Baloney Detection Kit contains the tools I am talking about, which are not tools to tell people what to do in their aquarium. This was not one of those articles (there are plenty of them), though I have written them as well. :D
I like Reefs Magazine because they are interested in articles that are different from the kinds of articles you normally see.

Then your weight behind a review or testing of products would be far more credible than that of a hobbyist such as myself.

I think we'll cross that bridge when and if we get an independent testing group together.

and you're a biologist who works at a public aquarium. You're telling me that if you test two different nitrate removing products per the company's guidelines, in the same size tank, with the same water, same temp, and all things being equal. Then post the results, that you're gonna get sued? C'mon.

Nope, thats not what I am saying at all because there is no way my job would support testing hobby products for the sake of testing hobby products. There is not the time, space, money or need to do it.
As an individual, testing products would open my life up to the potential of lawsuits. However, if you don't feel the same way, I look forward to the results of your tests! :D

It happens all the time. I don't know how much influence you have there, but dropping and not recommending certain products for poor performance, while recommending others would go along way to educating people in what works and to buy.

I totally agree. Find the funding and I'll help set it up if I can!
 

NYreefNoob

Skimmer Freak
Location
poughquag, ny
Rating - 99.4%
168   1   0
ok, well first off thank you for starting a post worth reading. i have persoally tried alot of different stuff myself, one of the problems i think with any product is they give a gestimated dosage amount, no one can really say you need x amount for this many gallons and so on, we all have different tanks creature's and equiptment, as well as maintanance on them, taking other factors into play also, people who smoke in their house, people who don't people who smoke who put hands into tank and so on, i had used kick ich months back when my tank had a real bad ich outbreak. never had it as bad as i did at that time so after some research and reading a article on reef keeper mag { think thats where } they tested it against xenia being one of the easier corals to kill or grow like a weed and it had no ill effect, so i said screw it and gave it a try, i raised my tank temp { from everything i have read said it speeds the process up of the ich } and started away on my treatment, now the next day my my fish went from having 40+ cyst to having 1 or 2, had a thread on it and people telling me it doesnt work and so on but had never used it themselves. now the product doesnt say it kills ich but will kill off the free floating cyst which is what i was after, the treatment ran just over 2 weeks and seemingly worked for me.

there are alot of snake oils and equiptment that are hyped up and if 1 known person says it doesnt work in the hobby then a bunch of bandwagoners jump on same goes if they say it works
 

Thales

Advanced Reefer
Staff member
Vendor
Location
SFBA
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Thanks for posting to the thread!

never had it as bad as i did at that time so after some research and reading a article on reef keeper mag { think thats where } they tested it against xenia being one of the easier corals to kill or grow like a weed and it had no ill effect, so i said screw it and gave it a try, i raised my tank temp { from everything i have read said it speeds the process up of the ich } and started away on my treatment, now the next day my my fish went from having 40+ cyst to having 1 or 2, had a thread on it and people telling me it doesnt work and so on but had never used it themselves. now the product doesnt say it kills ich but will kill off the free floating cyst which is what i was after, the treatment ran just over 2 weeks and seemingly worked for me.

there are alot of snake oils and equiptment that are hyped up and if 1 known person says it doesnt work in the hobby then a bunch of bandwagoners jump on same goes if they say it works

Absolutely!
Ich is a real problem in this realm because of the lifecycle of the parasite. I love that you used the word seemingly - the distinction is very important. I am skeptical of those kinds of ich medication because ich is only free floating for several hours, then it encysts and can stay dormant for a long long time.

Oh - increasing temp only helps speed up the lifecyce of freshwater ich which a completely different creature.
 

Wes

Advanced Reefer
Location
Raleigh, NC
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Re:

It reminds me of Borneman's article from '06...

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-07/eb/index.php

Sent from my iPhone using Reefs
 

House of Laughter

Super Moderator
Staff member
Vendor
Location
Ossining, NY
Rating - 100%
310   0   0
I think what the author is trying to get at is to have hobbyists use their critical thinking to think inductively.

Instead of working from known scientific theorems, proofs or research (deductions) we should use our ability to exercise what we "know" from scientific research (which one has to have first) and then apply it to methods that have NO scientific foundation and come up with an induced logic that supports our observations.

Using Rick's Ich example, he found out about the lifecycle of Ich (deductive or scientific), did some research on others experience with the product in question (his observations) and was comfortable buying it to remedy his ich problem - and it worked on his fish - so did his inductive approach to finding a product that worked for him.

This is what I took away from the article -

House
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Gotcha! I am pretty sure what you are looking for is outside the scope of the article. The Baloney Detection Kit contains the tools I am talking about, which are not tools to tell people what to do in their aquarium. This was not one of those articles (there are plenty of them), though I have written them as well. :D
This is why I felt it underserved. A few quotes from the article "A skeptic is not closed minded to new ideas, but is cautious of ideas that are presented without supporting evidence.", (there was none) "How reliable is the source of the claim?" (don't know) and "Have the claims been verified?" (nope!) This is why I was looking forward to seeing some evidence as to what didn't work, thats why I asked the question. Shows like Mythbusters, Penn and Teller: Bullsh!t and Scooby Doo, "investigate", present their evidence, "then" call BS.

I think we'll cross that bridge when and if we get an independent testing group together.
This would help the hobby immensely.

As an individual, testing products would open my life up to the potential of lawsuits. However, if you don't feel the same way, I look forward to the results of your tests! :D
I don't feel the same way, so we'll agree to disagree here. If there was evidence that a company was basically commiting fraud, then they would fear a lawsuit from the hobbyist rather than the other way around! "But", the burden of proof is on the person making the claim that the product doesn't work!:D

I totally agree. Find the funding and I'll help set it up if I can!
What are you using now? This could easily start with no funding at all! You write the articles, so this could start small like a "Product of the Month" type of thing. Highlight a product that you are using, use it and report the results. Well thats just an idea.
 

beerfish

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 100%
32   0   0
I don't feel the same way, so we'll agree to disagree here. If there was evidence that a company was basically commiting fraud, then they would fear a lawsuit from the hobbyist rather than the other way around! "But", the burden of proof is on the person making the claim that the product doesn't work!:D

You'd be surprised at what a legal team will try to sue for, and it doesn't really matter if the lawsuit has merit. A large company can bury you in paperwork, and force you to hire an attorney to review it. Even an inexpensive attorney can rack up tens of thousands of dollars reviewing and responding to motions.

Here are some examples in the beer industry of large companies attacking smaller ones. Notice the line in the one article that reads:

He says that trademark attorneys keep telling him the law is with him, but that he should just give up because it will be too expensive to litigate.

Anheuser Busch sues Brick Brewing Company for using Limes on their labels:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=abhyksODZxhc

Monster Energy Drink sues Vermont Brewery for Vermonster Beer:
http://consumerist.com/2009/10/brewer-sued-by-monster-energy-drink-asks-america-for-help.html
 

Thales

Advanced Reefer
Staff member
Vendor
Location
SFBA
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
This is why I felt it underserved.


I hear you, but at the same time I think you are critiquing an article that I didn't write. :D I understand that you wanted an article that looked at particular products, but that isn't what I wrote. I saw a need and wrote an article to address that need, and I fully understand if it isn't for you.

A few quotes from the article "A skeptic is not closed minded to new ideas, but is cautious of ideas that are presented without supporting evidence.", (there was none)

But the article was not about specific claims about products, so of course there was no supporting evidence regarding what works and what doesn't.

"How reliable is the source of the claim?" (don't know)

There were no product claims.

and "Have the claims been verified?" (nope!)

If there were none, I am not sure how they could be verified.

This is why I was looking forward to seeing some evidence as to what didn't work, thats why I asked the question.

I understand that, but that isn't what I wrote, nor was it the purpose of the article.

Shows like Mythbusters, Penn and Teller: Bullsh!t and Scooby Doo, "investigate", present their evidence, "then" call BS.

But I wasn't presenting any evidence - as has been pointed out several times in this thread, I was attempting to give people tools for navigating product claims, not taking on specific product claims.

This would help the hobby immensely.

No one disagrees with you in principal. However, being involved for a long time, I think such a project is more difficult that you seem to think it is. I might be wrong, and fully encourage to pursue it yourself. In fact, I wrote the article I did because I even though I love the previous articles by Borenman and Shimek on the same topic, I thought they were missing practical advice on ways to wade through information related to this hobby.

What are you using now? This could easily start with no funding at all! You write the articles, so this could start small like a "Product of the Month" type of thing. Highlight a product that you are using, use it and report the results. Well thats just an idea.

Most of what I use (salt mix, Ca, Mg, Alk and limited vodka dosing) has already been covered by other people (Holmes-Farley, Wing, etc), so I don't see a reason to spend time going over it again. That said, I don't think simply using a product and reporting results (what does that even mean - the corals look better won't cut it) really gives us the kind of information that the hobby needs. I covered a lot of the why in the first installment, but anecdotal reports, while they can be useful can also be completely inaccurate in regards to the reality.
 

Simon Garratt

Advanced Reefer
Location
Southampton UK
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
what does that even mean - the corals look better won't cut it

Sadly this is an all too common occurance imo, where short term initial visual changes are taken as an improvement rather than being observed over the long term and studied in detail to acertain if indeed those visual changes are in fact an 'improvement' in the health of the coral with coloration being a case in point....its actually quite easy to get maximum visual color from a coral just before it c**ps out on you..to the untrained eye that vibrance is often confused with an improvment, with little 'after the event' information offerd..

how many times has polyp extension been used as a benchmark for describing how good a product or method is.....regardless of other factors (lack of preditors/pests etc) that can equally affect the visual status of the coral...and thats before you even get into the idea that the coral might actually be starving which is why its being forced into non nocturnal feeding mode..

The same applies to lighting....my corals look better therefore the lamp/tube/ bulb must be better...regardless of the 'actual' usable amount of light emited..

regards
 
Last edited:

adamt

Advanced Reefer
Location
westchester ny
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
I figured Id jump in and settle this issue for everyone (your welcome btw :P)

What works:
regular water changes (10%-20% a week) with a quality salt (everyone has their personal fav. and they all seem to work so no point in naming a brand really, but lets just say coralife its cheap and after years of use I always found it to be pretty consistant)

maintaining adeqaute calcium 400-500ppm: kalkwasser, calc reactors, and esv are all proven methods each with their pros and cons

magnesium: the only other trace element that needs to be added if you are doing reg water chagnes. Kent, esv, brightwell are all fine, just make sure u test for it.

Know before you go: never add anything to the tank you cant test for. make sure you know the levels of an element and how much you need to add before you add it. Use reef calculator if you need to figure out how much of something to add.

coral foods: say what you want, but all corals benefit from regular feedings if for no other reason that it feeds micro organisms that the corals feed on in turn. DT's, rotifeast, oysterfeast, kent pro series three part, and coral frenzy all do well check to see which suits your system best based on the corals you keep.

bio available carbon in conjunction with adding some beneficial bacteria periodically:
whether its from vodka, vinegar or bio fuel adding carbon does promote the growth of beneficial bacteria and will lower nutrient levels. The addition of bacteria from time to time although not 100% necessary does insure that there is always living bacteria to utilize the carbon.

I strongly believe that high import/export of nutrients is a necessity for this concept to work. Put stuff thats good for the corals and ecosystem in the tank and make sure the leftovers and bi-products are removed regularly via water changes/skimming. It is a technique that has been proven effective time and time again (check out reefbums tank pics if there is any doubt)

avoid swings in temp ph and chemistry: any one of these can cause serious stress to corals and fish and set off a chain reaction of problems.

If you follow these steps and your lighting/flow/filtration is adequate for the species you are attempting to keep and you have choosen species that are compatible, your corals WILL grow, you might lose a stray specimen here and there but that comes with the territory. It really is that mind numbingly simple. The hard part is staying dilligent with testing, cleaning, dosing, and water changes. You cant go two weeks w/o doing anything and make up for it by dumping a bunch of supps. in the tank.



medicines and other treatments:

salifert flatworm exit DOES work but it is important to follow the directions exactly, a turkey baster and some hungry fish do an equally good w/o the risk of toxins being dumped in the tank from the dead flatworms.

ruby reef ich medication DOES work if the directions are followed, but prolly not any better than raising the temp a few degrees and slightly lowering salinity. Garlic goes a long way in preventing it and have a cleaner shrimp or neon goby to eat any parasites that do manage to appear works well too. At the end of the day if your system is balanced and the fish is other wise in good shape it should be able to fight off ich and not really ever have it return.

now I am by no means saying that there arent other products out there that work. I'm just saying, if you do what I listed above, you will not need them plain and simple. As a general rule of thumb if something seems to good to be true or promises multiple results should prolly be avoided. Adding calcium will raise calcium, adding magnesium will increase magnesium... these are straight forward assertions that are easily backed up. "mikes super insane coral potion" (fake name)that says it will raise calcium, stabilize ph and alk, include all trace elements while providing corals with essential vitamins and amino acids should probably be avoided or atleast closely scrutinized before added (ecosystem reef solution comes pretty close to this all in one ideal, less the calcium and alkalinity, over all its a very good product but the majority of its components can not be tested and years of experience from multiple users is the only proof I have that it works, so start with a low dose and adjust as needed)

This may not have been the point of this thread but it is the answer to the question of "what works?"
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I hear you, but at the same time I think you are critiquing an article that I didn't write. :D I understand that you wanted an article that looked at particular products, but that isn't what I wrote. I saw a need and wrote an article to address that need, and I fully understand if it isn't for you.
You're right, it isn't for me. Please don't take this as an attack because its not (it never has been, we agree to disagree). I've read it and I appreciate your time and effort in writing it. But I've tried to give it a chance, and have come to the conclusion that the article is nothing more than unsubstantiated...bunk! Thats just "my" conclusion, "my" opinion. Some people here may swear by this article and by you, but to "me", its just not credible. Its selling the boogie man. This happens all of the time in court, on the news, and in politics. If we "think" that something is going on, then its going on, no evidence needed! I kinda sensed this when I first read it, but I wanted to hear what you had to say first. I use "Skeptical Thinking", not just when somebody is "selling" me something, but also when somebody is "telling" me something. I also ask certain critical questions on purpose, just to see what response I get. I watched you lace up your track shoes and run the other direction as fast as you could!

Remember people , ?Just because someone said it, doesn't mean it?s true.?-Author. Since you said that "the article was not about specific claims about products"-Author, even though in the article you said that they don't work. Thats a claim.
"A skeptic is not closed minded to new ideas, but is cautious of ideas that are presented without supporting evidence"-Author

"so of course there was no supporting evidence regarding what works and what doesn't."-Author.

This goes both ways, and I'll rest my case here since in our hobby this is what we need REGARDLESS of who is saying it, or selling it. So without a "claim" (supposedly never said that the products didn't work), without any "evidence" (no testing, no data, no example of actual false advertising, no nothing!) and no support (no back it up, no idea of how to get anything started, and no will to do it)=no credibility. Yes, I understand about "thinking" (I just did it) but I'm sorry, I can't follow this.
 

Thales

Advanced Reefer
Staff member
Vendor
Location
SFBA
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Truthfully, I am confused by your posts, I don't understand where you are coming from and would like to if you are willing to take the time. I hope you choose to continue to conversation because I think we are missing each other.
 

Thales

Advanced Reefer
Staff member
Vendor
Location
SFBA
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Rich, I will be very interested to hear what you vet has to say about flatworm exit. I read the box a long time ago and I do not remember any ingredients listed. There are no ingredients listed on the bottle and no ingredients listed on any of the web pages that sell it - just that it is nontoxic to everything but flatworms. 16oz of PraziPro is only about $30.00 compared to $20 for that little eyedropper bottle of flatworm exit.


No one seems to have any idea what is in FWE and the manufacturer is not telling. The vet has no opinion on FWE because there are no ingredients listed. :D There has been speculation that it is prazi.

I have used FWE in the past with good results - no dead corals and dead FW's. I was very careful to do large water changes and actively run carbon after dosing. I stopped using it though because just leaving the FW's alone for awhile seems to allow the population to either crash or limit itself.
 
Location
Upper East Side
Rating - 100%
21   0   0
I had a flatworm breeding tank for a while. The population never crashed. I added wrasse after wrasse after wrasse to try and get them under control. I FWE-ed once and I obviously didn't treat for long enough after the initial dosage because when I went out of town for a couple of weeks and came back, they were back with a vengeance. I think FWE does not kill eggs and it is important to keep dosing for several weeks.

The FWE did take care of the adult flatworms and did not hurt my corals.

I finally got rid of my flatworms for good when I moved my tank and had about a million of them die. They poisoned the entire tank; we had to leave the windows open to air out the apartment. I bleached all of my rock, rinsed it, let it dry and put it in a dark bin. Now? No more flatworms.

I would bet ANYTHING that FWE is just praziquantel - it's probably just more concentrated than Prazipro.
 

Thales

Advanced Reefer
Staff member
Vendor
Location
SFBA
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Thats interesting about moving the tank and the FW population crashed. There has go to be some parameter change that would could use to trigger the crash. It would be great if someone with funding time and facilities (or grad students) would do some studies on it.
 
Location
Upper East Side
Rating - 100%
21   0   0
I think it's because I didn't switch out the sand. The flatworms were out of water and died in the sand and slowly released their toxins into the water. At least, that is my theory. If I smell dead flatworms ever again, I may throw up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Sponsor Reefs

We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.

Click here to sponsor $10:


Top