It doesn't seem Heavy metals are the cause

[rshimek]

Hi Greg,

Did you see that the problem was with newly added fish? They were dying in a one to two week period of adding them to the tank.

Such a mortality pattern would be consistent with fish dying of acute poisioning. - As well as, of course, some other things. Simply can't tell by this distance.

New fish added after the three month period were fine.

If some factor in the tank was reducing the mortality to toxic effects, waiting would work in your favor.

Also, if it was heavy metal poisioning, wouldn't the snails, crabs and other inverts die long before fish?

Not necessarily. A lot of survival to this stuff depends on acclimation, and if they were already acclimated to it, they could be surviving by detoxifying the metals loads. I think a lot of "salinity" acclimation problems have nothing to do with salinity, but everything to do with metals detoxification.

It is hard to make generalities about toxicity across different animal groups, some snails and such are quite prone to dying in any elevated metal environment, but there are a few which are quite hardy.

Scott,

You said, "I am wondering if this might be related at all to the reason why many of the less hardy additions to our tank, such as corals anemones and some fish, must wait 6 months before the tank "matures", long after the initial cycling of the tank has finished."

Yes, I think that is precisely why that that happens.

 

[Dietsip]

I think that the metals explanation of the significant differences obtained is a good hypothesis. But there are potentially many other differences between the samples that could also be the "true" explanation. Ammonia, pH, nitrite, nitrate, sulfate, organics, and a host of other chemical atttributes remain possibilities. [/B]

But the fact remains that the salts used as directed in the concentrations the manufacture provides gave the results Dr. Ron obtained.

 

[Bomber]

Such a mortality pattern would be consistent with fish dying of acute poisioning. - As well as, of course, some other things.

Strange, on the surface it would seem that way. However, allowing for "acclimation" and "resistance", there should be some survivors. This is actually more indicative of a disease problem, rather than a environmental problem.

Also, if it was heavy metal poisioning, wouldn't the snails, crabs and other inverts die long before fish?

Yes

 

[rshimek]

Actually quite a number of common mollusks, worms, and other invertebrates are tolerant of heavy metal pollution, so much so that they are referred to as "pollution indicators." Along the Pacific coast, these include species amphipod genera (particularly gammarids) and some species of trochid snails, and several species of common anemones.

I am unfamiliar with any tests done with any of the common marine aquarium animals that show any quantitative data of metals tolerance, other than the ones cited in the study. We have plenty of anecdotal information however, that indicates at least most species commonly kept are somewhat tolerant (after all they exist in IO water....).

 

[ausnakeguy1]

Did anyone bother to ask then why IO was so popular? I am sure with over 60% of reefers using IO (from one of the non-scientific polls taken on another forum), someone must have noticed something bad about IO compared to other salts?

Actually it has to do with marketing believe it or not. The picture of the Clown Fish in its host anemone with such pretty tips, and colors is a highly attributable factor in the choice of IO over other brands. We actually looked at this in my Strategic promotions course, the professor is into Reefs and he always wondered why one salt sold better than the other when they were basically all the same. One of the things that came up in the study was that the Clown fish is a big symbol of the Salt Water tank, and of keeping tanks. Ask any non reefer or even reefer why they joined the hobby, and whats a salt water fish you want to have and most will say it was so they could have a cute little clown fish. By IO putting that clown fish on the bucket and packaging it caused a Hedonic response as we call it in marketing, causeing the consumer to use emotions to do the purchasing. They think well if i buy this product then i can have my clown fish and all the pretty colors.

While you may say no you don't, actually you do unless you did the tests for it to see which one was closest to Sea Water. When you look at a bucket of Kent with the red label, and a bucket of Red Sea with its little pristine pictures and a pic of IO with the HUGE clownfish on it. The Clownfish causes an emotion response and then causes various other responses most of which you aren't even aware you are doing.

Also, if it was heavy metal poisioning, wouldn't the snails, crabs and other inverts die long before fish?

No Boomer they wouldn't, in LongIsland were my family has lived for over 80 years now, we have a salt creek in the back. And in this creek are many mussels and Long neck clams. You can NOT eat these animals unless you want to get very sick from the increadibly high concentrations of Arsenic and Mercury found in these creatures. So no they wont' necissarily die first. As Dr. Ron said they are an indicator of the health of the area, i also believe that corals will incorporate these various metals into their skelletons. Is this true Dr. Ron?

And thanks for taking time out of your life and putting your money towards doint this study. A lot of us appreciate it.

 

[Bomber]

I sorry there's a little confusion here. Greg had astreas in his tank, not long necks.

 

[ausnakeguy1]

ha ha...funny guy you are bomer. You know what I am saying.

 

[gregt]

I don't know what you or Ron are saying on this. We aren't talking about theoretical species that may be tolerant, we're talking about astreas which are not.

 

[ausnakeguy1]

Greg,
I am not talking about theoretical speices, a Long neck clam is a real speices I don't know the genus or spieces but they are a real creature, I know I've played with them, dug them up out of the sand, etc when I was a little kid.

And I put that foward with Boomers post of if the Metals were built up in the tank to toxic levles that the inverts would die before the fish. While Astreas, turbos, etc may be very sensitive to toxic metals, I was simply showing a flaw in Boomers statement he'd said woudln't the snails, crabs and other inverts die before the fish. That encompases more than just Astreas. Thats why I put that up there to show that no not all inverts are as sensitive to heavy metals and therefore you woudln't see a problem.

 

[parakeet]

Couldn't the right balance of elements be economically harvested from the sea itself(in clean locations)? It must be feasible, because I have seen sea salt for sale at the supermarket. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[gregt]

They are theoretical, because they weren't in my tank. Astreas were in my tank. To assert that it's possible for my fish to die when my astreas didn't because long neck clams and some mussels are tolerant makes no sense whatsoever.

The point is, lets stick to the subject of how the animals actually in my tank that are not known to be tolerant somehow managed to live when fish, which typically are much more tolerant died quickly.

 

[ausnakeguy1]

Parakeet, I asked that question in another forum and I think it was Randy who told me that when you dehydrate the sea water there are certain elements that will not go back into solution, what thoes elements and compounds are i could not tell you.

 

[traveller7]

The point is, lets stick to the subject of how the animals actually in my tank that are not known to be tolerant somehow managed to live when fish, which typically are much more tolerant died quickly.

Hate to say it, but everything going forward on the past deaths will likely exist as unproven theory. It may be possible to rule out factors (metals) by testing substrate, live snail shells, etc.

Best of luck and may there be no repeat under your care.

 

[parakeet]

Thanks, that makes sense.

 

[MamaJude]

Dr. Ron...

I have a question...I have been a hobbyist for over 30 years, 25 or so which have been solely marine. I have used Instant Ocean and Kent Marine pretty much exclusively. I had a mated pair of percula clowns that spawned all the time. I do believe that the results of your testing are exactly what you have published, but in all honesty, can you say definitively that it was toxic metals that killed the urchin larvae and were causing the problem in your tank?

It would seem to me that in order to substantiate your results, the true cause of the death of the dead urchins should have been established beyond a doubt. And if you say that over time, these metals will contaminate a long lived tank, then where are the tests taken on mature tanks to substantiate this fact?
While I agree that your results seem to point in that direction, I have not read anything that actually shows proof of that to be true. And if it is not true, then what happened to the accumulation that you say is likely? If a mature tank is likely to export these metals, however it is done (and I am no marine biologist) then it seems to me that a tank should be set up, matured and then the critters added, and this debate on salt mixes is irrelevant.

Also, in another thread, the salt poll, dendronepthya states that as an undergraduate, in the biology class that was taken, they raised the same exact urchin you did in Instant Ocean and had no significant mortally such as you experienced. Don't you find this a bit puzzling?

Please know that I am not putting down your testing, nor denegrating its results, only noting that I find your conclusions a bit premature. If the study was meant to provoke thought and query into the composition of salt mixes, then it has done its work. I, for one, would be glad to contribute to an independantly done study on the long term effects of the different salt mixes. As a hobbyist very immersed in the hobby, I would certainly like to do what is best for my reef tank.

With all due respect,
Jude

 

[MamaJude]

Dr. Ron...

Sorry. I was reading some of your other threads on the salt issue after I posted my original query. Is the supposition that you had your rock and sand tested for heavy metals true? If so, what were your findings? Also, it seems that you say that the release of heavy metals from the sand bed and/or rock comes at lower ph? If your tank was declining slowly, wouldn't it be an accurate supposition to assume that your water would be holding the metal too, since you assume that toxic metal was the culprit in your own case of OTS?

If the sand and rock were saturated, then the metal would be discernable in the water, correct? At least I think that was what you were meaning. So, following that logic, then the metal would be removable by the filter pads, or other methods, perhaps skimming. I used to use a product a long time ago manufactured by Hawaiian Marine that was called Hydrokoll. It was supposed to bind with heavy metals and remove them from the tank via your skimmer. Have you ever heard of this?

Very interesting threads we have here. I hope that you don't take my questions as a stab at your dedication or your motives. I respect anyone who takes the initiative to find out what may be the culprit when something happens to a stable environment. I did the same thing when my cat died of FIP.

As my vet once told me, while it is true that veterinarians and other learned colleagues advance the quality of life for animals, it is often the pet owner, who in search of answers to unanswered questions, stumbles on a direction that leads to the ultimate answer. I would hope that the same applies to all of the hobbyists here. As we try different things to make life richer for our reefs, we also may aid in finding the "right" answer to all of our unanswered questions. Since you have a vast following here, the answer to a lot of our questions may lie in the sharing of information in regards to this hobby.

Thanks for caring

Jude

 

[rshimek]

Originally posted by MamaJude

Hi,

I do believe that the results of your testing are exactly what you have published, but in all honesty, can you say definitively that it was toxic metals that killed the urchin larvae and were causing the problem in your tank?

No, I test survivability of the urchin larvae, and did not attempt to determine the cause. The excessively high heavy metals concentrations in the salts with the highest mortality prompted me to propose the hypothesis that the metals caused the mortality.

It would seem to me that in order to substantiate your results, the true cause of the death of the dead urchins should have been established beyond a doubt.

No. The urchins did not do as well in 2 of the salts tested. Those are the results. I didn't attempt to determine the cause of death.

And if you say that over time, these metals will contaminate a long lived tank, then where are the tests taken on mature tanks to substantiate this fact?

Scan through my articles over the last year in <b><a href="http://reefkeeping.com" target="_blank">Reefkeeping Magazine</a></b>


Also, in another thread, the salt poll, dendronepthya states that as an undergraduate, in the biology class that was taken, they raised the same exact urchin you did in Instant Ocean and had no significant mortally such as you experienced. Don't you find this a bit puzzling?

No, I have had student raise urchins in it my classes as well. However, generally the survivability in these classes is quite low. But in a class situation that doesn't matter. All you want is to have some survive.

I, for one, would be glad to contribute to an independantly done study on the long term effects of the different salt mixes.

And, gee, just how is my study not an independent on? I am not employed, paid or reimbursed by any aquarium product manufacturer, and I have run bioassay facilities in the past.

If the sand and rock were saturated, then the metal would be discernable in the water, correct? At least I think that was what you were meaning. So, following that logic, then the metal would be removable by the filter pads, or other methods, perhaps skimming

Read the articles in <b><a href="http://reefkeeping.com" target="_blank">Reefkeeping Magazine</a></b>, start with a year ago February and work forward. You will find answers to most of your questions.

 

[rshimek]

Originally posted by gregt

Hi Greg,

The point is, lets stick to the subject of how the animals actually in my tank that are not known to be tolerant somehow managed to live when fish, which typically are much more tolerant died quickly.

Actually, the point is that neither you, I, or anyone else knows why your fish died. :mixed: We can jaw about all we want, but we'll never come up a definitive answer and it is really hard to go back in time to get the appropriate evidence.

Frankly, I suspect in the case of your fish, it probably was disease that did 'em in. But, we don't know - and never will.

 

[MamaJude]

Dr. Ron...

I am a bit puzzled by the tone of your reply to me. As a hobbyist, and a concerned reefer, I was just asking questions about your findings and relaying to you some other data that might impact your conclusions in your study. I was in no way attacking your credibility or your sincerity about your work. You published your findings publicly; didn't you think you would have questions, especially considering that your following consists mainly of non phd people?

We are all trying to understand what you wrote, how you did things and what, if anything might have influenced your results. Questions are just that, although after reading the forums here, I can understand why someone would show a bit of hostility at the way some questions and comments were phrased.

You said that you hypothisized the conclusion. I can respect that. And if you had read the post following my first, you can see that I did do followup on your forums. It is a daunting task here to search through all the threads to find the answer, if you even do, to a question you might have. I thought the purpose of having you in this one was so that we might ask these questions and receive answers.

However, I must remind you that you are in a much different position than I am. Your specialty is definitely not mine. You are regarded as a definitive expert in your field. What you say can and will impact what people do here. As such you have a much greater responsibility because of your expertise to make sure that what you say is interpreted in the manner by which you meant it to be interpreted.

Quote:

"And, gee, just how is my study not an independent on? I am not employed, paid or reimbursed by any aquarium product manufacturer, and I have run bioassay facilities in the past."
***************************************************

And by the way, I did not mean to convey criticism of your study. I merely meant that I would be glad to contribute to another, longer term study to do further research into this matter. That is what research is, isn't it? At least, as far as I am aware, one study is not the definitive word on any subject matter. It merely points out a probable suspect and points to a probable culprit. The ensuing studies either cohoberates the original study or refutes it. And then the researches go on.

What is the prime goal of such research anyway? I would think it is to find the correct answer. You may very well be right on your conclusions. But I would think you would welcome further study into the matter, even if your conclusions turn out to be wrong. It should not be a matter of pride, or solicit anamosity, from you because I asked such questions, even if to you, they are very infantile.

Regards,
Jude

 

[Skipper]

Hey Jude. FWIW... I didn't interpret anything Ron said as antagonistic to you.