It's Still in the Water!
- Thread starter cfockler
- Start date
Michael,
One other thing, you didn't quite answer my first question as to which species you plan to use, Lytechinus... ??
Ah... frankly, what difference does it make? Do some looking around, I told you where I was getting them, if you are that interested, you can find the information from there.
Okay then, from reading the earlier posts it wasn't apparent to me that you even considered accepting the idea.
Oh, I considered it, but there are no data whatsoever confirming that it occurs, and I think taking it on faith is idiotic, as it seems to me that many other things could be occurring.
Termination
Termination
Folks,
We have beaten this topic to a pulp, and gone off on a number tangents, most of which have been unproductive.
The amount of time I have invested in this thread has been unfortunately, significant, and it has detracted from other things I need to be doing.
Consequently, I am closing the thread. If you wish to continue the discussion with me via email, we can do that, but the discussion here is at an end.
Termination
Folks,
We have beaten this topic to a pulp, and gone off on a number tangents, most of which have been unproductive.
The amount of time I have invested in this thread has been unfortunately, significant, and it has detracted from other things I need to be doing.
Consequently, I am closing the thread. If you wish to continue the discussion with me via email, we can do that, but the discussion here is at an end.
Ron may choose not to post any more if he elects. Since the thread itself doesn't violate any reefcentral rules, however, it seems to me that it should remain open in case anyone else does.
Oh, I considered it, but there are no data whatsoever confirming that it occurs, and I think taking it on faith is idiotic, as it seems to me that many other things could be occurring.
FWIW, I find it unfortunate that Ron thinks the thread has been unproductive and the views of reefcentral members "idiotic".
Luckily, I don't think any people in this thread have taken anything on faith (certainly not me). I've mentioned several times that metal toxicity might be an issue in our tanks, and alternatively suggested reasons that it also may not be so critical that we are killing large numbers of corals in normal tanks. That's the whole point that several of use were trying to make: there may be alternative explanations that are worth considering.
Now that Ron is considering them too, as he suggests, then perhaps our time here has been well spent, and we can productively proceed to understand what is taking place in our tanks.
Oh, I considered it, but there are no data whatsoever confirming that it occurs, and I think taking it on faith is idiotic, as it seems to me that many other things could be occurring.
FWIW, I find it unfortunate that Ron thinks the thread has been unproductive and the views of reefcentral members "idiotic".
Luckily, I don't think any people in this thread have taken anything on faith (certainly not me). I've mentioned several times that metal toxicity might be an issue in our tanks, and alternatively suggested reasons that it also may not be so critical that we are killing large numbers of corals in normal tanks. That's the whole point that several of use were trying to make: there may be alternative explanations that are worth considering.
Now that Ron is considering them too, as he suggests, then perhaps our time here has been well spent, and we can productively proceed to understand what is taking place in our tanks.
Ron:
Though this thread has gone on a long time, I, for one, have learned a lot.
I thank you for your patience in all the questions that you have answered.
Randy:
How exactly can we proceed to determine what is going on in our tanks? It takes properly designed experiments, time, and, as Ron has pointed out several times, money.
How do you determine or eliminate organics as the source of toxicity in our tanks.
Its enough to drive me to buy a lottery ticket.
Re: Old Tank Syndrome
This label is a bit of a red herring in my opinion. It has not in any way been defined let alone defined in a manner that one can conclude that it is the effect of one specific set of toxins.
Fred.
Though this thread has gone on a long time, I, for one, have learned a lot.
I thank you for your patience in all the questions that you have answered.
Randy:
How exactly can we proceed to determine what is going on in our tanks? It takes properly designed experiments, time, and, as Ron has pointed out several times, money.
How do you determine or eliminate organics as the source of toxicity in our tanks.
Its enough to drive me to buy a lottery ticket.
Re: Old Tank Syndrome
This label is a bit of a red herring in my opinion. It has not in any way been defined let alone defined in a manner that one can conclude that it is the effect of one specific set of toxins.
Fred.
Ron Luckily, I don't think any people in this thread have taken anything on faith (certainly not me).
- You
- have no data to support anything that you have suggested occurs in aquaria at all,
- cannot figure out a way to test for any of it
And, I don't think you have followed through on what would happen to anything that is "chelated" or bound to any organic material. This material would likely go to form flocculant material in the water or small particulate organic material and be eaten, by many organisms. In effect this "organic" binding, if it did occur would likely be a rather well designed "posion delivery system" using the particulate organic material that so many animals, including corals, eat. So, the question of whether or not the materials I have found are either simply ionic or bound to something is moot. They are still in the water, still bioavailable, and still toxic.
That's the whole point that several of use were trying to make: there may be alternative explanations that are worth considering.
When will you mention some of them?
When will you mention some of them?
I don't know how you could have missed these POSSIBILITIES:
1. Organics chelate the metals, and so the metals are not at toxic concentrations to the corals that we choose to keep in most reef tanks.
2. That the metal concentrations you measured represent values that include solid, particulate, and colloidal materials, and are thereby less toxic then shown in studies that test (by addition) only freely dissolved metals.
3. That organics in our reef tanks are quite a bit more toxic than the heavy metals. Many of those known to be in seawater are mutagens and otherwise highly toxic. If I were to spend time studying toxicity, organics is where I'd put my money.
4. That our tankis can benefit from certain heavy metal additions. They may or may not be lower than NSW (iron, manganese, etc.), but tanks still clearly benefit.
It is lucky for you that my iron article posted yesterday. Now you don't have to spend time claiming that I am not addressing the issue of heavy metals, and that I have not run experiments.
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/aug2002/chem.htm
I don't know how you could have missed these POSSIBILITIES:
1. Organics chelate the metals, and so the metals are not at toxic concentrations to the corals that we choose to keep in most reef tanks.
2. That the metal concentrations you measured represent values that include solid, particulate, and colloidal materials, and are thereby less toxic then shown in studies that test (by addition) only freely dissolved metals.
3. That organics in our reef tanks are quite a bit more toxic than the heavy metals. Many of those known to be in seawater are mutagens and otherwise highly toxic. If I were to spend time studying toxicity, organics is where I'd put my money.
4. That our tankis can benefit from certain heavy metal additions. They may or may not be lower than NSW (iron, manganese, etc.), but tanks still clearly benefit.
It is lucky for you that my iron article posted yesterday. Now you don't have to spend time claiming that I am not addressing the issue of heavy metals, and that I have not run experiments.
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/aug2002/chem.htm
I don't know how you could have missed these POSSIBILITIES:
And no data to support any of them.
It is lucky for you that my iron article posted yesterday. Now you don't have to spend time claiming that I am not addressing the issue of heavy metals, and that I have not run experiments.
Well, after fighting my way through the advertisements...
Randy, the only data you have in your poll are the results of an unscientific poll of reef hobbyists raising Caulerpa. woo woo....:eek2:
Do you have any measurements on the effects of the iron?
Did you test any hypothesis?
Do you have a schedule of dosing?
Did you measure iron uptake by anything?
You at one time mentioned controls? Where is your control?
How about a table of data? How about one datum?
You are right. I don't have to spend any time claiming that you don't run experiments; you have conclusively proven that you can't run one.
You sound like the old farmer who, after drinking some beer, added some self-generated liquid fertilizer to his garden and thinks his tomatoes are bigger. :bounce2:
Last edited:
Sigh...
OK, so we have all these metals in the water and a bunch (deliberately non acurate term since we don't know how much) of them are tightly bound by organics.
Habib, you talked about these bonds "holding tight" in nsw. Will these bonds be broken in the digestive tracts of the filter feeders we have in our aquariums?
Randy, how do we determine exactly what is killing organisms in our tanks?
Also, what organics in our tanks are more toxic than heavy metals?
Fred.
OK, so we have all these metals in the water and a bunch (deliberately non acurate term since we don't know how much) of them are tightly bound by organics.
Habib, you talked about these bonds "holding tight" in nsw. Will these bonds be broken in the digestive tracts of the filter feeders we have in our aquariums?
Randy, how do we determine exactly what is killing organisms in our tanks?
Also, what organics in our tanks are more toxic than heavy metals?
Fred.
And no data to support any of them.
You say this over and over, but of course it is completely untrue. Perhaps it is my fault for not doing your literature searching for you.
In "Captive Seawater Fishes" by Stephen Spotte, there is a multipage literature review with many references to copper toxicity and how the speciation of copper relates to toxicity in aquarium settings.
Here's a summary:
1. Copper is KNOWN to be CHELATED to ORGANIC compounds in aquaria.
He states "Immediately on dissociation the Cu(II) in copper salts forms very strong and complete nonlabile complexes with humic acids."
2. Copper chelation by organics causes a decrease in toxicity of copper to phytoplankton by reducing the free copper concentration.
He states "Toxicity in phytoplankton is reduced substantially when Cu(II) is complexed with inorganic and organic substances in solution and becomes unavailable for uptake by the cell walls." and "THE TOTAL CONCENTRATION OF TOTAL COPPER IS NOT A FACTOR".
3. To be pefectly fair, in orther organisms, organic copper compounds are still toxic. Notably things like certain polychaetes that absorb the organics as well as they do free metals.
Consequently, there is more than enough published literature data to support the HYPOTHESIS that organics may reduce the toxicity of copper and other metals towards corals in reef tanks. It is not a pure fantasy, as you suggest, but a possibility that flows naturally from the published literature.
You say this over and over, but of course it is completely untrue. Perhaps it is my fault for not doing your literature searching for you.
In "Captive Seawater Fishes" by Stephen Spotte, there is a multipage literature review with many references to copper toxicity and how the speciation of copper relates to toxicity in aquarium settings.
Here's a summary:
1. Copper is KNOWN to be CHELATED to ORGANIC compounds in aquaria.
He states "Immediately on dissociation the Cu(II) in copper salts forms very strong and complete nonlabile complexes with humic acids."
2. Copper chelation by organics causes a decrease in toxicity of copper to phytoplankton by reducing the free copper concentration.
He states "Toxicity in phytoplankton is reduced substantially when Cu(II) is complexed with inorganic and organic substances in solution and becomes unavailable for uptake by the cell walls." and "THE TOTAL CONCENTRATION OF TOTAL COPPER IS NOT A FACTOR".
3. To be pefectly fair, in orther organisms, organic copper compounds are still toxic. Notably things like certain polychaetes that absorb the organics as well as they do free metals.
Consequently, there is more than enough published literature data to support the HYPOTHESIS that organics may reduce the toxicity of copper and other metals towards corals in reef tanks. It is not a pure fantasy, as you suggest, but a possibility that flows naturally from the published literature.
Randy,
You make broad generalizations and treat them as known facts.
The fact remains that you have demonstrated no data supporting your suppositions in any of your systems or any others.
You now, finally, have a hypothesis to test.
Go ahead and test it or simply discuss it, but don't treat it as if it were anything but an asked question until you have the data in hand.
You make broad generalizations and treat them as known facts.
The fact remains that you have demonstrated no data supporting your suppositions in any of your systems or any others.
You now, finally, have a hypothesis to test.
Go ahead and test it or simply discuss it, but don't treat it as if it were anything but an asked question until you have the data in hand.
I think that we are getting caught up in the details here. As the saying goes we are looking at a tree instead of the forest. With all due respect to Dr. Ron and the wonderful work he is doing for this hobby I still think the sample size is inadequate to draw the conclusions that were drawn. What Dr. Ron says very well may be true but then again maybe not. There are just too many variables and without larger sampling we are not going to be able to draw conclusions about reeftanks in general.
There are too many things that can throw off such a small sample. Maybe most of the tanks contained Fiji LR and the LR is the problem and contains a high level of certain metals before it gets to the tank. Maybe 50% of the tanks sampled used trace element additives which throw off some readings. Maybe in one of the tanks someones child threw a penny in the tank when Dad was not looking. I could go on and on but you get my point. In such a small sample these errors do not get cancelled out.
I think that both sides have some interesting and valid points but we are argueing over the findings in 23 tanks. We are arguing about the tree not the forest.
Now someone pony up a ton of cash so Dr. Ron can test 2,000 tanks, then we can discuss findings
There are too many things that can throw off such a small sample. Maybe most of the tanks contained Fiji LR and the LR is the problem and contains a high level of certain metals before it gets to the tank. Maybe 50% of the tanks sampled used trace element additives which throw off some readings. Maybe in one of the tanks someones child threw a penny in the tank when Dad was not looking. I could go on and on but you get my point. In such a small sample these errors do not get cancelled out.
I think that both sides have some interesting and valid points but we are argueing over the findings in 23 tanks. We are arguing about the tree not the forest.
Now someone pony up a ton of cash so Dr. Ron can test 2,000 tanks, then we can discuss findings
Randy, the only data you have in your poll are the results of an unscientific poll of reef hobbyists raising Caulerpa. woo woo....
No, not exactly, but I do consider that an interesting and potentially useful piece of data as well. What's your beef with it? Do you believe it to be incorrect, and that adding iron has no effect whatsoever on sexual reproduction of caulerpa in reef tanks? Do you have any data for reef aquaria? Or is it just that you don't like information gathered from hobbyists? Or do you not accept standard stastical analysis?
As to experiments, maybe you missed that I personally dose iron at hundreds of millions of the NSW level and have seen only good effects. Hmmm, you'd think that heavy metal poisoning would have kicked in a little before that if it were an issue for iron.
FWIW, a great many people have asked me for help with caulerpa problems (fading, dieing, not growing much). In many of those cases I recommended iron, and what happened? Iron often IMMEDIATELY solved the problem (it greened up and began to thrive). What's you're beef with that? Do you not believe that it happens? These people have all lied?
Do you have any measurements on the effects of the iron?
Yep. Same as above.
Did you test any hypothesis?
Yep. Same as above.
Plus "Adding iron will not prevent sexual reproduction of caulerpa racemosa in my tank". That null hypothesis failed, and sexual reproduction has been prevented for years.
Plus "Adding iron will not encourage microalgae in a mixed tank of microalgae and macroalgae". That null hypothesis failed to, as the macroalgae thrived and the microalgae quickly lost out and disappeared, even where there was no predation. This effect was suggested to me years ago, and has been reproduced in many tanks.
Do you have a schedule of dosing?
Absolutely. Every day. Same amount. If you want details to try it in your own system (beyond what is in the paper, of course), I'll be glad to suggest some good supplements and schedules for you.
Did you measure iron uptake by anything?
And what would be the purpose of that? It is well established in the scientific literature that it is taken up. Again, I'll refer you to the many page literature review in "Captive Seawater Fishes" by Stephen Spotte. That review goes into great detail on where the iron is going and how it gets there.
My hypotheses did not involve uptake. It involved microalgae growth, macroalgae growth, color, and sexual reproduction. Since I do not know how much iron would be necessary to attain those effects, nor whether currently available techniques would see the uptake (recall you detected no iron), it seemed of little value. Besides, if I showed uptake, that doesn't imply benefit, does it? Copper uptake, after all, is what can kill things. So what would you or anyone else in the hobby do with iron uptake numbers for my reef tank? Such a criticism again looks more like an attempt to discredit someones work rather than to be asking for a legitimate piece of informnation that they would use to formulate some type of conclusion. Or am I missing some insight that you have about iron uptake rates?
No, not exactly, but I do consider that an interesting and potentially useful piece of data as well. What's your beef with it? Do you believe it to be incorrect, and that adding iron has no effect whatsoever on sexual reproduction of caulerpa in reef tanks? Do you have any data for reef aquaria? Or is it just that you don't like information gathered from hobbyists? Or do you not accept standard stastical analysis?
As to experiments, maybe you missed that I personally dose iron at hundreds of millions of the NSW level and have seen only good effects. Hmmm, you'd think that heavy metal poisoning would have kicked in a little before that if it were an issue for iron.
FWIW, a great many people have asked me for help with caulerpa problems (fading, dieing, not growing much). In many of those cases I recommended iron, and what happened? Iron often IMMEDIATELY solved the problem (it greened up and began to thrive). What's you're beef with that? Do you not believe that it happens? These people have all lied?
Do you have any measurements on the effects of the iron?
Yep. Same as above.
Did you test any hypothesis?
Yep. Same as above.
Plus "Adding iron will not prevent sexual reproduction of caulerpa racemosa in my tank". That null hypothesis failed, and sexual reproduction has been prevented for years.
Plus "Adding iron will not encourage microalgae in a mixed tank of microalgae and macroalgae". That null hypothesis failed to, as the macroalgae thrived and the microalgae quickly lost out and disappeared, even where there was no predation. This effect was suggested to me years ago, and has been reproduced in many tanks.
Do you have a schedule of dosing?
Absolutely. Every day. Same amount. If you want details to try it in your own system (beyond what is in the paper, of course), I'll be glad to suggest some good supplements and schedules for you.
Did you measure iron uptake by anything?
And what would be the purpose of that? It is well established in the scientific literature that it is taken up. Again, I'll refer you to the many page literature review in "Captive Seawater Fishes" by Stephen Spotte. That review goes into great detail on where the iron is going and how it gets there.
My hypotheses did not involve uptake. It involved microalgae growth, macroalgae growth, color, and sexual reproduction. Since I do not know how much iron would be necessary to attain those effects, nor whether currently available techniques would see the uptake (recall you detected no iron), it seemed of little value. Besides, if I showed uptake, that doesn't imply benefit, does it? Copper uptake, after all, is what can kill things. So what would you or anyone else in the hobby do with iron uptake numbers for my reef tank? Such a criticism again looks more like an attempt to discredit someones work rather than to be asking for a legitimate piece of informnation that they would use to formulate some type of conclusion. Or am I missing some insight that you have about iron uptake rates?
You at one time mentioned controls? Where is your control?
My tank is it's own control (before and after dosing; a well established technique in both biological and medical research). In the hobbyist survey, the control is people who dose no iron against those who dose iron. I'm surprised that you didn't understand these issues.
How about a table of data? How about one datum?
Not sure what you want. Some types of data are suited to a table, and some a stastical result. Have you ever seen epidemiological data that gave a table of every response? Of course not. They give a stastical analysis of the data, and set aside the primary data for review off line. The priamry data for my stastical experiment was carried out here at reefcentral, so you can look it up yourself and reanalyze it if you wish.
You are right. I don't have to spend any time claiming that you don't run experiments; you have conclusively proven that you can't run one.
OOOOOH. Struck through the heart again. You'll find I'm fairly immune to such lame criticism. :lolspin:
You sound like the old farmer who, after drinking some beer, added some self-generated liquid fertilizer to his garden and thinks his tomatoes are bigger.
Maybe you'be better explain this insult a little better. It doesn't seem to make sense. I though fertilization was a proven fact.
My tank is it's own control (before and after dosing; a well established technique in both biological and medical research). In the hobbyist survey, the control is people who dose no iron against those who dose iron. I'm surprised that you didn't understand these issues.
How about a table of data? How about one datum?
Not sure what you want. Some types of data are suited to a table, and some a stastical result. Have you ever seen epidemiological data that gave a table of every response? Of course not. They give a stastical analysis of the data, and set aside the primary data for review off line. The priamry data for my stastical experiment was carried out here at reefcentral, so you can look it up yourself and reanalyze it if you wish.
You are right. I don't have to spend any time claiming that you don't run experiments; you have conclusively proven that you can't run one.
OOOOOH. Struck through the heart again. You'll find I'm fairly immune to such lame criticism. :lolspin:
You sound like the old farmer who, after drinking some beer, added some self-generated liquid fertilizer to his garden and thinks his tomatoes are bigger.
Maybe you'be better explain this insult a little better. It doesn't seem to make sense. I though fertilization was a proven fact.
Fred:
How exactly can we proceed to determine what is going on in our tanks? It takes properly designed experiments, time, and, as Ron has pointed out several times, money.
Absolutely. It is a very tough problem. If metals are toxic in our tanks, it is very hard to show what animals are suffering from it. Good old tox tests on each animal of interest would be necessary. Showing it for any coral or other animal that we wish to keep, however, would probably generate substantial interest and possibly money.
How exactly can we proceed to determine what is going on in our tanks? It takes properly designed experiments, time, and, as Ron has pointed out several times, money.
Absolutely. It is a very tough problem. If metals are toxic in our tanks, it is very hard to show what animals are suffering from it. Good old tox tests on each animal of interest would be necessary. Showing it for any coral or other animal that we wish to keep, however, would probably generate substantial interest and possibly money.
Go ahead and test it or simply discuss it, but don't treat it as if it were anything but an asked question until you have the data in hand.
I need to repeat literature experiments that are discussed in Spotte? What on earth for? Do you not believe them?
Would you be more inclined to believe it if I found and reported the same thing 10-30 years later than the original research? I appreciate the confidence in my skills, but I think the original researchers did an OK job.
I need to repeat literature experiments that are discussed in Spotte? What on earth for? Do you not believe them?
Would you be more inclined to believe it if I found and reported the same thing 10-30 years later than the original research? I appreciate the confidence in my skills, but I think the original researchers did an OK job.
Randy, how do we determine exactly what is killing organisms in our tanks?
What organisms?
What organisms?
Ron:
You make broad generalizations and treat them as known facts.
Name one that I made, please.
You make broad generalizations and treat them as known facts.
Name one that I made, please.
