Another "Get off my lawn" moment from the washed-up: ULNS??

[Moser]

Not me. At this point I would be interested in basic tests and see where the results might lead for further experimentation.

The most basic test is there in abundance- observation. The Zeo tanks just look different. It just seems that all of this has been done already?!.... But I don't wish this to become a circular argument. So we should agree to disagree on this point.

That's a shame. The hobby moves forward in leaps and bounds when people are willing to put some effort forth. I wrote an article that will be out in a bit in reef hobbyist magazine about harnessing the energy and resources of reef clubs for just this kind of thing, maybe someone will be inspired.

That is the problem. Everybody is hoping that somebody else will be inspired...:headwalls:

The three people in this thread that have been asking questions were asking the same questions when Zeovit first hit the market.
In my opinion as a consumer that isn't good enough. It wasn't good enough for Marc Weiss products or the Eco Aqualizer.

Strange that they haven't taken the initiative after all these years to try the very experiments they want somebody else to do and disprove Zeovit?. There are plenty of reefers out there that know it works, so this one is now down to the disbelievers to prove it doesn't work, in the face of a huge number of tanks that look fantastic using this methodology.

And, as you can see your opinion as a consumer wanting proof on the claims of a 10 year old system's abilities to produce beautiful coloured corals is worth very little?!. I guess you could try writing an article about it?, but it's poor journalism to try and discredit a system that spawned a whole wave of bacterial driven systems, that are the norm for a large proportion of systems today....don't ya think??....


Mo

 

[Moser]

another inland reef product test!

What we will have to go with until you show us your scientific evidence to disprove its credibility or do wedothis for another 10 years whilst you all wait for somebody else to setup a 'simple' experiment.... Blah... Blah... Blah...:debi:


Mo

 

[Thales]

Strange that they haven't taken the initiative after all these years to try the very experiments they want somebody else to do and disprove Zeovit?. There are plenty of reefers out there that know it works, so this one is now down to the disbelievers to prove it doesn't work, in the face of a huge number of tanks that look fantastic using this methodology.

And, as you can see your opinion as a consumer wanting proof on the claims of a 10 year old system's abilities to produce beautiful coloured corals is worth very little?!. I guess you could try writing an article about it?, but it's poor journalism to try and discredit a system that spawned a whole wave of bacterial driven systems, that are the norm for a large proportion of systems today....don't ya think??....


Mo

Hmmm. I think you have me confused with someone else.

 

[Moser]

Hmmm. I think you have me confused with someone else.

Oops!.

Mo

 

[penfold2]

Is anyone here saying that zeovit doesn't work? There are plenty of tanks out there showing that it does. I think the argument is that there are simpler, cheaper, and more transparent methods of achieving the same results. If I wanted a proven methodology, didn't mind paying a premium for it, and didn't need to understand exactly how it works, I'd probably go zeo. But personally, I enjoy experimenting with my tank and learning about the processes occurring in it. I wouldn't want to simply add x ml of bottle a and y ml of bottle b because that is an educational dead end IMO. There are some things that can be learned from the zeo method, but only to the extent that we understand what is in the supplements being added. Open methodologies allow the hobby to advance freely and much more quickly.

And I have to disagree with karsseboom's idea that SPS husbandry is some mysterious, unknowable art. It's true that there are frequently too many variables to attribute success or failure to any one factor in a given system. But that doesn't mean there is nothing to be learned. There are many instances where we can eliminate enough variables and/or create a large enough sample size to gain some useful data. Forums like this allow us to create large sample sizes that make data more meaningful. That's the reason we have such an extensive knowledge base, and we don't simply throw together some salt and water and cross our fingers. Problems can be difficult to diagnose, frequently require a multi prong approach, and we may never definitively know what caused or solved them, but the knowledge that we apply to our problems and occasionally gain from them is real. This hobby has made huge advances in the last few decades and will continue to do so as people experiment and learn.

 

[vitz]

You can't pick a zeovit tanks from other methods? You don't see a resemblance in those tanks pictures I posted? If not then you haven't been around many sps tanks.

you're right !

(if thousands = not many)

:lolspin:

 

[karsseboom]

you're right !

(if thousands = not many)

:lolspin:

We're your eyes open or closed? When you saw these.

 

[dc]

You gave an unsupported, hyperbolic, broadly libelous statement.

So i'm lying? lol okay then your lying about your post.

You two, knock it off!!

 

[vitz]

I'm not trying to argue with you.. but this is what I'm talking about. Very condescending responses.

If "anybody" did it would be refuted to no end. Somebody with creditability needs to take the initiative on these type of things. Honestly I don't care either way, I don't use Zeo products anymore. My only goal was to try to put a constructive spin on the topic that hopefully everybody could agree to. I failed at that and am going to go back on the sidelines to let you guys argue until the thread gets locked.

the problem w/your assertion about my statement being condescending is that a 12 yr. old COULD actually do it. lots of 12 yr. olds can follow simple procedural directions


for all/any of you who don't seem to be able to grasp some very simple concepts:

'magic' in the sense/context of this discussion (at least the intent/definition i'm using) can be illustrated thusly:

a long time ago (maybe not so long), no one knew what the sun was, or what laws/forces influence/govern its apparent behavior in the sky. w/no scientific knowledge, any and all explanations/assertions made are exactly akin to calling those reasons 'magic'-which is really a word meaning - 'i have no clue why or how'. if everyone was just willing to accept that for life/world observations we'd be w/out the wheel today, and people would be limited to keeping goldfish bowls only

i find it odd how people here seem to know, definitively, that this zeostuff is
affecting coral pigmentation on one hand w/ absolutely no proof, or even a reasonable hypothesis as to why this happens, and i'm sure that there's a plethora of people who dose that 'stuff' the same way they've seen someone else do it while getting different results.

there are nice looking zeovit tanks, and crappy ones. there are nice looking non zeovit tanks, and ones that look crappy. but it's not *because* of the zeovit, or lack thereof. nor is there anything involved other than kasserboom's (or anyone else's) purely subjective personal aesthetic opinion/sensibility, as regards statements like 'zeovit tanks are the most beautiful' or 'can be picked out from a mile away'.

NO ONE here has yet to provide a convincing argument to back up the assertion that one can manipulate coral pigmentation by zeovit-by kasserboom's own admission that there's too many variables automatically faults any assertion he makes about zeovit (get it?) if there's too many variables to test, there's too many variables to assert any effects from one particular item, either.

you can't have it both ways-kinda like the old 'irresistible force meets unmovable object' argument

it all boils down to how the system is managed. NOT about some particular product.

the only ones who truly have something to directly gain from its use are the ones who sell it-if you could get result 'a' regardless of whether or not you used a 'miracle product, or a bottle of 'liquid magic', why would you go to the trouble and expense of using something completely unnecessary?

(this goes for ANY 'miracle product'-remember the backyard dirt sold as 'miracle mud' ? zeostuff is in the EXACT same league-hocus pocus mumbo jumbo )

 

[vitz]

We're your eyes open or closed? When you saw these.

you don't know who you're discussing things with-plenty of folk here and elsewhere are aware of my 'experience qualifications'.

chances are that i was keeping reef tanks long before you were born, and have worked in more retail, wholesale venues than you would/could guess, in various parts of the world.

(just one example to satisfy your petulance): the last 'large' coral system i husbanded was about 10-15k gallons, and i used to mix salt water between 6k-12k gallons at a time . good enough for a start?

and i'm the one being 'ad hominem' or condescending ?

 

[vitz]

Is anyone here saying that zeovit doesn't work? There are plenty of tanks out there showing that it does. I think the argument is that there are simpler, cheaper, and more transparent methods of achieving the same results. If I wanted a proven methodology, didn't mind paying a premium for it, and didn't need to understand exactly how it works, I'd probably go zeo. But personally, I enjoy experimenting with my tank and learning about the processes occurring in it. I wouldn't want to simply add x ml of bottle a and y ml of bottle b because that is an educational dead end IMO. There are some things that can be learned from the zeo method, but only to the extent that we understand what is in the supplements being added. Open methodologies allow the hobby to advance freely and much more quickly.

And I have to disagree with karsseboom's idea that SPS husbandry is some mysterious, unknowable art. It's true that there are frequently too many variables to attribute success or failure to any one factor in a given system. But that doesn't mean there is nothing to be learned. There are many instances where we can eliminate enough variables and/or create a large enough sample size to gain some useful data. Forums like this allow us to create large sample sizes that make data more meaningful. That's the reason we have such an extensive knowledge base, and we don't simply throw together some salt and water and cross our fingers. Problems can be difficult to diagnose, frequently require a multi prong approach, and we may never definitively know what caused or solved them, but the knowledge that we apply to our problems and occasionally gain from them is real. This hobby has made huge advances in the last few decades and will continue to do so as people experiment and learn.

:thumbsup:

 

[vitz]

What valuable information can a coral biologist give me to help explain why sps corals RTN for no apparent reason when all my parameters were spot on? Marine biologist are some of the worst sps keepers I have seen. They are text book kings.

Intact there is an aqaurium that close by my house. They are like the zoo but with tropical marine life. They have a few nice display tanks and one is a full blown sps reef. They had hired 4 certified marine biologist to care for the systems. They ended up firing all four because they couldn't maintain the tanks to save there life. I talked to the owner and he said they were very smart and looked good on paper buy in the real world of keeping sps in a closed environment they were completely lost.

how many marine biologists are there ? you have experience w/ 4.

'nuff said

 

[vitz]

Is anyone here saying that zeovit doesn't work? There are plenty of tanks out there showing that it does. I think the argument is that there are simpler, cheaper, and more transparent methods of achieving the same results. If I wanted a proven methodology, didn't mind paying a premium for it, and didn't need to understand exactly how it works, I'd probably go zeo. But personally, I enjoy experimenting with my tank and learning about the processes occurring in it. I wouldn't want to simply add x ml of bottle a and y ml of bottle b because that is an educational dead end IMO. There are some things that can be learned from the zeo method, but only to the extent that we understand what is in the supplements being added. Open methodologies allow the hobby to advance freely and much more quickly.

And I have to disagree with karsseboom's idea that SPS husbandry is some mysterious, unknowable art. It's true that there are frequently too many variables to attribute success or failure to any one factor in a given system. But that doesn't mean there is nothing to be learned. There are many instances where we can eliminate enough variables and/or create a large enough sample size to gain some useful data. Forums like this allow us to create large sample sizes that make data more meaningful. That's the reason we have such an extensive knowledge base, and we don't simply throw together some salt and water and cross our fingers. Problems can be difficult to diagnose, frequently require a multi prong approach, and we may never definitively know what caused or solved them, but the knowledge that we apply to our problems and occasionally gain from them is real. This hobby has made huge advances in the last few decades and will continue to do so as people experiment and learn.

bear one thing in mind:

having a tank do great that's getting ANY particular additive does not = the tank is doing great because of that additive. not without data or proof.

 

[MammothReefer]

Ugh. I really want to stop posting in this thread.

Again Vitz I don't disagree with you, but you are asking the wrong people the right questions and badgering them in the process. All you will ever get back from the end user is the information they have been told and the first hand experience they have had or perceived to have had with the product. They won't have any answers that you couldn't find in any forum post, marketing collateral, and so on.

Yes you are right some 12 years old could do it, just like some trade scientists could botch it up. For me if the experiment that could effect the life of my pets was done by a 12 year old it wouldn't hold much water for my applications unless it was checked over and approved by somebody with qualifications to do so, but that's just me.

you don't know who you're discussing things with-plenty of folk here and elsewhere are aware of my 'experience qualifications'.

This is the crux of the issue or at least a big part of it. On one hand you guys assume that everybody should take your word as gospel yet you post under avatars. So please take a moment to introduce yourself (or re-introduce in some cases) if you want to be taken seriously as reputable professional qualified individual and not just another random person on the internet posting without anything to backup their claims other then a "trust me" then by all means enlighten us, and please none of the "if you want to know figure it out, or "go ask the other mods who I am" as earlier in this thread. It's a bit of a double standard to ask Zeo to be fully transparent when you guys are attacking his user base from behind the curtains as well.

I've done some good things in my career that are worth noting but I don't just assume that everybody knows who I am or what I've done when I'm post on a forum or walk into a room. If it's relevant share it but please don't treat people like they are dumb for not being in the know.

Thanks,
B

 

[Thales]

Hey hey, don't lump people together. I don't think it is important that anyone know who I am - the only important thing is the ideas. Just as words of 'experts' shouldn't be taken as gospel, so shouldn't words of someone that is unknown to you be dismissed.

These articles seem relevant to the current discussion:
http://packedhead.net/2010/skeptical-reefkeeping-part-2-magic-in-a-bottle/
http://packedhead.net/2012/skeptical-reefkeeping-part-6-communication/
http://packedhead.net/2011/skeptical-reefkeeping-experts-and-changing-your-mind/

 

[MammothReefer]

I disagree if you want to speak as creditable source whom has notoriety in the field of discussion then it is only common courtesy to at least inform the people whom your are talking with whom they are talking to. It would go along way to decreasing the hostility that often percolates in these threads. Unless it's some sort of running gag to jump onto forums and play stump the amateur.

 

[Thales]

I disagree if you want to speak as creditable source whom has notoriety in the field of discussion then it is only common courtesy to at least inform the people whom your are talking with whom they are talking to. It would go along way to decreasing the hostility that often percolates in these threads. Unless it's some sort of running gag to jump onto forums and play stump the amateur.

I would think that common courtesy would dictate that people not be hostile in the first place - regardless of it the people being talked to are notorious or not. People with notoriety aren't always right and I think the ideas are more important than who they come from.

 

[MammothReefer]

I would think that common courtesy would dictate that people not be hostile in the first place - regardless of it the people being talked to are notorious or not. People with notoriety aren't always right and I think the ideas are more important than who they come from.

Agreed but the hostility is coming from both directions. So if you (and I'm not saying you specifically) are going to say things to the tone of well if you knew who I was then you would know I know what I'm talking about. Then by all means tell us.

Any whooo... so off topic now anyways. Let's just drop the issue and hope things can get back on track.

 

[vitz]

Ugh. I really want to stop posting in this thread.

Again Vitz I don't disagree with you, but you are asking the wrong people the right questions and badgering them in the process. All you will ever get back from the end user is the information they have been told and the first hand experience they have had or perceived to have had with the product. They won't have any answers that you couldn't find in any forum post, marketing collateral, and so on.

Yes you are right some 12 years old could do it, just like some trade scientists could botch it up. For me if the experiment that could effect the life of my pets was done by a 12 year old it wouldn't hold much water for my applications unless it was checked over and approved by somebody with qualifications to do so, but that's just me.



This is the crux of the issue or at least a big part of it. On one hand you guys assume that everybody should take your word as gospel yet you post under avatars. So please take a moment to introduce yourself (or re-introduce in some cases) if you want to be taken seriously as reputable professional qualified individual and not just another random person on the internet posting without anything to backup their claims other then a "trust me" then by all means enlighten us, and please none of the "if you want to know figure it out, or "go ask the other mods who I am" as earlier in this thread. It's a bit of a double standard to ask Zeo to be fully transparent when you guys are attacking his user base from behind the curtains as well.

I've done some good things in my career that are worth noting but I don't just assume that everybody knows who I am or what I've done when I'm post on a forum or walk into a room. If it's relevant share it but please don't treat people like they are dumb for not being in the know.

Thanks,
B

i wasn't the one to start casting aspersions based on one's assumption of someone else's experience or knowledge level. not once did i go down that road until it was brought into the fray by the o.p. (it's a schoolyard 'red herring' strategy, after all )

all of my arguments are about what he stated here-NOT what i may or may not be assuming about his level of experience or knowledge-nor did i imply such

again-you can't say on one hand-'my tank looks great because of product 'x', and in the same argument say that 'you can't prove it (effects of any or all products)because we have no scientific knowledge or methodology to rule it in or out'. the statements are irreconcilable. (they're also insulting to both aquarium science, and all science in general)

 

[karsseboom]

you don't know who you're discussing things with-plenty of folk here and elsewhere are aware of my 'experience qualifications'.

chances are that i was keeping reef tanks long before you were born, and have worked in more retail, wholesale venues than you would/could guess, in various parts of the world.

(just one example to satisfy your petulance): the last 'large' coral system i husbanded was about 10-15k gallons, and i used to mix salt water between 6k-12k gallons at a time . good enough for a start?

and i'm the one being 'ad hominem' or condescending ?

I was questioning your credibility because you said carbon dosing and microorganisms are snake oil? Wow