Protein Skimmer

[pledosophy]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7702992#post7702992 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichConley
Ok. This is exactly why I dont go on seahorse.org anymore. Point proven.

Because you make unfounded statments with no explanation and are asked to back them up? I noticed you didn't answer any of the questions. You could at least try.

Here's a question for you: What percentage of seahorse owners were running HOB skimmers on their tanks at the time the survey was taken?

This survey was not designed for that. The point of the survey was to determin potential triggers for the disorder. Anyone posting in the emergency forum with GBD was asked to fill out the survey, some have, leaving the survey where it is today. It was not designed specifically to pin point protein skimmers. The ideas about protein skimmers came after the survey, not before. The survey took an unbaised approach just gathering data.

Just to be clear, it is not my survey. I was just lucky enough to see the results early.

I think the arguement your making can easily be compared to the arguements about cigarette smoking. I had an uncle who smoked 4 packs a day for 20 years and never got cancer, that doesn't mean cigarettes don't cause cancer.

Infact most people who smoke cigarettes don't get lung cancer, and there are even people who get lung cancer that don't smoke.

Lot's of people will reoprt that they use protein skimmers without issue, that does not mean that it is not the cause of the problem with other seahorses. It seems IMO that the cause is more directly related to those seahorses who are predisposed to the disorder because of a hyper or hypo active enzyme carbonic anhydrase. That is why you do not see protein skimmers causing GBD with all seahorses. With seahorses who are predisposed, protein skimmers can be directly linked to reoccuring cases through piles of ancedotal evidence, the finding of Public Aquariums, and through the research paper I posted earlier in this thread.

So if I assume 90% using HOB skimmers, saying 85% of GBD cases were in tanks with skimmers is actually evidence that GBD is HELPED by skimmers. Do you have those facts? I dont think so.

I'm sorry I can't follow your logic here at all.

To my knowledge tehre has been no wide spread study done on the amount of keepers who use protein skimmers compared to the mount that do not. If we could get a rough number here I think it would be intresting.

It would also be intresting to see what percentage of seahorses have trouble with the enzyme carbonic anhydrase and then try to put the different numbers together and see where they ended up.

You would have to remove people who kept tanks over 4' in depth, because taking a seahorse 4' below the waters surface can cure GBD on it's own.

That would be an intresting study. I suggest you pursuit it.

As to coming on this board and posting oppinions: You are posting your oppinion with no evidence to back it up.

Please take the time to go through and read my posts again. You will find an abstract of a research paper where experiments with protein skimmers and seahorses were performed, a link to a forum dedicated to GBD with posts by people like Marc Lamont, Keith Gentry, Pete Giownja, David Warland, etc, etc, and you will also find my explanation of research related to the particular enzymes involved from Dr Belli (Labdoc), a pathologist who has made significant contributions to the hobby in relation to syngnathid care.

If all you are going to do is continue to dismiss anything outside of your own opinion as rubbish without presenting anything that would even suggest it to be contrary, then I don't really see a point in continuing this.

Maybe it better to agree to disagree.

 

[TamiW]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7706652#post7706652 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by pledosophy
To my knowledge tehre has been no wide spread study done on the amount of keepers who use protein skimmers compared to the mount that do not. If we could get a rough number here I think it would be intresting.

And this is exactly why the survey is useless (well, one of many reasons). Without a basis to judge the number of skimmers, you have no idea how many people DON'T have problems using skimmers. If in all seahorse users, 80% use skimmers, and 20% don't; and then of all the gas bubble disease cases, 80% have skimmers on the tank and 20% don't, what that would be saying is that skimmers have absolutely nothing to do with GBD. If it turns out that 95% of seahorse keepers use skimmers and 5% don't, and 80% of the gbd cases have skimmers, 20% don't, then that suggests that skimmers actually help, not hinder.

I understand you didn't set up the survey, but you're treating it like it is valid, and its just not. I remember at IMAC not long ago Marc Lamont of seahorse.org got into a debate with Jeff Mitchell from the Shedd Aquarium after Marc's talk. Jeff pointed out his flawed methodology, and his (Marc's) argument was that the scientific community is trapped by inside the box thinking and that his research didn't need to be peer reviewed to be valid. I'm paraphrasing, but the point is that no scientific group is going to take any of this information seriously because it doesn't mean anything.

Furthermore, you have to take into account that the skimmers are evil mantra at seahorse.org prevents unbiased discussion. I know that I was alienated after vehemently disagreeing with the research methods being used and suggesting we try to work with outside sources, not drive them away (aquariums, other seahorse related communities). I know several individuals that feel the same, some with real scientific backgrounds. How many others are there like that that I don't know about? That alone makes the survey biased towards people that toe the party line and are going to "notice" the problem and correlate to the skimmer.

If the survey was to be truly unbiased, they'd get there nearly 6000 members, opposed to a statistically insignificant 85, to fill out a survey that covered all aspects of their experience with seahorses, as well as specifics regarding each participlants experience with gas bubble disease. They would then form a hypothesis based on that information; nothing more, and start doing experiments based on that hypothesis that are documented and replicated. When I got involved with seahorse.org, real research involving outside unbiased labs was one of her goals. Unfortunately things went sideways for her and that ended that.

 

[RichConley]

Pledosophy, everything Fishgrrl says is 100% correct. There are specific reasons that control groups, and understandings of the total population need to be known.


Without them, this survey just doesnt mean anything, and is misleading.


Its worth than useless. Its a detriment to the hobby.

What needs to be done is figure out what % of people keeping seahorses are using HOB skimmers. Then figure out what percentage of people with GBD are using hob skimmers. If the number is even close, then the use of skimmers has no effect. If its significantly higher, than skimmers MAY be causing the issue. If its significantly lower, than skimmers MAY be preventing the issue.

WHat you have right now is akin to a marketing study.

 

[Fishguy13]

No more fighting ladies............ WOW you guys know a lot about seahorse thanks for all this helpful info

 

[simoneau]

(im new to sea horses) but i always think the closer to natural you can go the better!they are there own ecosystem yea know.there are plenty of people (with plenty of money)who will buy everything they make for salt tanks ( or fresh) and 90% of it isnt needed!my brother runs low lights and has no filters of anykind he has one power head and uses tap water in his 55g and he has a great looking tank he also hardly ever does any water changes and since my husband and i have fallowed his advice our tank is doin much better!so my advice is to not waste your money!

 

[djc1026]

Interesting read, I'm surprised the mods haven't stepped in yet I used to be a sponge and soak this stuff up like biscuits and gravy, then end up with a headache on a thread like this because of the strong opposing points of view.

My input for those who might be experiencing this is: Consider the information presented and make the most informed choice you can for your situation combined with what you personally know. Develop your own reasoning for doing things the way you do, make sure you understand why you're doing the things you are. You won't have to justify yourself to anyone, because you will be operating on your own premises based on your own choices.

We need these types of discussions for those that are into all the science of situations otherwise advancement would never happen without disagreement.

As an enthused aquarist, I personally don't care about all of the science behind the issue, I feel good that there are those out there investigating who can hopefully summarize there findings in lay terms to help me make my informed decisions, but the specifics just don't do it for me.

As for me, I use a HOB skimmer and don't do water changes - go figure If you want to know my reasoning please pm me and that's what I will tell you - reasoning, not science. (Flaming me will not incite me, so say to me what you wish for those this statement applies to.)

Very Respectfully,
Dave

 

[RichConley]

Very well put Dave.

My issue isnt the fact that they are claiming that skimmers are bad. Maybe they are, maybe they arent.

My issue is with scientific methods. You need control groups. You need to establish what the population is. You can't just grab a bunch of numbers and assume you're getting the whole picture.

The problem is that newbies in general dont understand how things work, so they have to just go off whatever article they can find. If those articles are based off coincidence, and not actual research, then they do nothing but hurt the hobby.

 

[pledosophy]

IME I have found it diffucult to get people to actually take a survey. You may know I have been researching mixing syngnathids species for the last year and a half. During that time I have come across hundreds of cases of people mixing species. When I come across anyone posting that they have more then one species in there tank, I send them a copy of a survey, and ask for there participation. The return response is discouraging. You would think people would be more willing to share, but they are not. For some reason many people don't feel the need to anwser all of the questions if they do participate, which then makes there survey responses useless.

I have also tried to start a thread thinking that maybe more people would like to be involved with a thread, then with a survey. Sent out close to a hundred invitation, have less then 10 posts. Out of those few anwsered the questions posed in the headline of the survey.

Getting the proper numbers is frustrating yes, but you will notice that the survey on GBD and the survey's on mixing species, have not been published. We know we need more, we are trying.

I don't know what the situation was a few years back on the org. I have been around for a couple of years, but know situations change. I know IME members of the org have suggested and put me in touch with several different scientists, university's, public aquarium's, and seahorse groups to help me compile more data on my specific research.

I am well aware that when I finsih my study on mixing syngnathids that I have spent years working on, that it will not meet up to scientific scrutiny. The cost of doing the research on that scale is upwards of half a million dollars, and no one is willing to fund it. Just because the funding is not there, does not mean that any of the conclusions that I have reached are not valid.

You will be able to point to my method and say my method is in error, but that does not mean you will be able to prove the conclusions wrong. The two are completely different.

I suspect that with time the same will be revealed about the GBD research. Accept that it is a work in progress and not a final result. To date it is the largest survey into the cause of GBD in aquariums in the world, if you choose to not call that research that is your perogative. From the first post where I cited anything I stated it was all ancedotal evidence in relation to the GBD, with exception to the research paper from the university, I have never represented it as anything different.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7659206#post7659206 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by pledosophy
While I will admitt that none of the links I am going to give you will completely meet the scientific requirements for a controlled group and proof through repition,

On the 6000 member scenario, IMO it is not really practical. Let's go back to the smoking lung cancer analogy. If you survey 1000 non smokers you could find that the most common corelation with lung cancer and an environmental factor is experienced by coal miners. It's not really true. To see what causes things like lung cancer or emphysema scientists study people who are affected with the disorder. The same logic holds true here. To see what is the environmental cause of GBD the desicion was made by someone (not me) to look into seahorses who actually had GBD, as opposed to the ones that do not.

IME following the emergency forum over on the org for the last couple of years, in most cases removing the protein skimmer from the system aleviates the problem. I will conceed that GBD does occur in seahorse systems without skimmers. In my observation most of these systems have been lower flow tanks. Although I do know of one case off hand where the flow in the tank was 9.5x an hour and there was no skimmer, but still presence of GBD. It is my opinion that there are multiple triggers for the disorder.

On a sidenote. I know with my research into mixing species I have caught a lot of flak from hobbyists who disagree with my collection methods saying they do not follow the scientific method. Oddly enough I don't get this from scientists at all. I only receive direction and encouragement. I find it odd to be met with such resistance from fellow hobbyists and to be welcomed so easily by the scientific community. Curators of Public Aquariums, Pathologists, University department heads all give encouragement, the only resistance I find is places like these, a place that was designed for just this sort of thing.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7737100#post7737100 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichConley

The problem is that newbies in general dont understand how things work, so they have to just go off whatever article they can find. If those articles are based off coincidence, and not actual research, then they do nothing but hurt the hobby.

I really think your not giving enough credit to the members of this forum. There are some pretty smart people if you look around.

Do you know there is no scientific proof that establishes that humans have the ability to smell. It is still a mystery. The way the olfatory senses work still eludes science. Does that mean we cannot smell? At one time gravity was a theory, yet we don't float away.

I do not think that sharing theories is detremental to anyone, as long as they are expressed cleary and stated for what they are. Infact I believe it is what sites like this were designed for. Collecting and sharing ancedotal evidence among various hobbyists can help direct science as to where to go to next.

I think the most harm to the hobby is done when people make up random things to have an excuse to post, or support their own theory.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7659311#post7659311 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichConley
Kevin, I highly doubt different genetic makeups is the reason for some horses showing symptoms, and sometimes all of them showing symptoms. . . ., it could just be an injury.

I was under the impression that GBD was caused by bacterial infection.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7659386#post7659386 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichConley

A lot of the symptoms for it sound like mycobacterium infection to me.

 

[djc1026]

So let me see if I can summarize this

1. GBD occurs in systems with AND without skimmers.
2. GBD occurs more frequently in systems with skimmers.
3. GBD appears to be alleviated in systems with skimmers when the skimmer is removed.
4. A conclusion to be drawn is that skimmers are not the cause of GBD, but exacerbate the condition, which some seahorses may be predisposed to.

This is called theory building and people don't have to have a single shred of concrete evidence to get there. You start with anecdotal info. Now, if Kevin had, what was it, half a million dollars, he may be able to test his theory with more scientifically sound methods. Until then, someone else needs to prove a theory that would disprove this one, and until that happens, people will follow and believe whatever they want.

And most people are smarter than we give them credit for. Those people who take things as gospel right off the bat just because someone sounds good or their post is 5000 words have a different problem all together.

Dave

 

[RichConley]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7740665#post7740665 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by djc1026
So let me see if I can summarize this

1. GBD occurs in systems with AND without skimmers.
2. GBD occurs more frequently in systems with skimmers.
3. GBD appears to be alleviated in systems with skimmers when the skimmer is removed.
4. A conclusion to be drawn is that skimmers are not the cause of GBD, but exacerbate the condition, which some seahorses may be predisposed to.

2. GBD occurs more frequently in systems with skimmers.

You can't assume that. What you can assume is this
"More cases of GBD are present in tanks with skimmers"

Those two statements have completely different meanings.
And theres a corrolary to that: More systems have skimmers than dont. Which makes piece 2 completely useless. Its called a red herring.


Its akin to saying that

1) Athletes foot occurs whether or not people own bathing suits
2) Athlestes foot occurs more frequently with people who own bathing suits


Therfore, bathing suits must cause athletes foot.


We're missing the population. Thats the problem, and without it, the data doesnt say anything. This is not about science, its about probability and statistics. Its about what proves what.

Your survey says what it says: 85% of GBD cases reported in this survey had skimmers. Thats all it says. No conclusions can be made from it. The data is not complete.

I just polled everyone I know who owns seahorses in my local club. We have 95% skimmer use. That provides a correlation that skimmers actually reduce occurance of GBD.

95% SKimmer use, only 85% of cases had a skimmer, thats a pretty serious correlation. 5% of the tanks are accounting for 15% of the cases. That makes tanks without skimmers almost four times as likely to have GBD.

 

[TamiW]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7740160#post7740160 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by pledosophy


Do you know there is no scientific proof that establishes that humans have the ability to smell. It is still a mystery. The way the olfatory senses work still eludes science. Does that mean we cannot smell? At one time gravity was a theory, yet we don't float away.

I call bull**** on this. Where do you find information that says there is no scientific proof that humans have the ability to smell? That would be easily testable. ANd, if you bother to read the wikipedia article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olfaction it goes into detail about the specific mechanisms of smell.

And gravity is still a theory.

 

[pledosophy]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7740665#post7740665 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by djc1026
So let me see if I can summarize this

1. GBD occurs in systems with AND without skimmers.
2. GBD occurs more frequently in systems with skimmers.
3. GBD appears to be alleviated in systems with skimmers when the skimmer is removed.
4. A conclusion to be drawn is that skimmers are not the cause of GBD, but exacerbate the condition, which some seahorses may be predisposed to.

T

Jeez why did it take me so long to say all that? :lol:

Great summary. The only thing I would add/change is number 3. If it were my summary it would read:

GBD appears to be alleviated in systems with skimmers when the skimmer is removed, but has shown it will return if the skimmer is put back on the system.

I just polled everyone I know who owns seahorses in my local club. We have 95% skimmer use. That provides a correlation that skimmers actually reduce occurance of GBD.

95% SKimmer use, only 85% of cases had a skimmer, thats a pretty serious correlation. 5% of the tanks are accounting for 15% of the cases. That makes tanks without skimmers almost four times as likely to have GBD.

Curious to know how many people you polled, how many of them had skimmers, and how many if any had ever experienced GBD. Also what local reef club do you belong to? Do they have a forum where we could view the posts.

Sorry I don't follow your math. Where are you getting the 85%? Perhaps if you have mistaken this number it is possible you have confused others as well.

I don't think anyone has stated anywhere in this thread that every seahorse in a tank with an HOB skimmer is going to get GBD. I tried to make it clear that this disorder only affected a small number of seahorses and explain the circumstances surrounding the situation. Clearly I am not able to do so in a mannor in which you will understand.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7741321#post7741321 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by FishGrrl
I call bull**** on this. Where do you find information that says there is no scientific proof that humans have the ability to smell? That would be easily testable. ANd, if you bother to read the wikipedia article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olfaction it goes into detail about the specific mechanisms of smell.

And gravity is still a theory.

Hi Tami.

I originally saw the special on PBS. Honestly I fell asleep in the middle of it so I can't argue it's merits to much. I can't find the exact episode on the PBS site, just a box set that include the show.I guess you can't believe everything you see on TV.

Most of the time I don't like to use wikipedia as a resource. IME many of the authors there while well intentioned are misinformed. Take the page on seahorses for example (since this is the seahorse forum). There are errors in regards to nutrition, tankmates, and managomy to name a few.

While I am not really qualified to critique the article on wikipedia in regards to the ense of smell, it does appear to be well written. Further research shows that a few things have changed since I was in college.


Howard Hughes Medical Institute Article

"How we perceive such chemical substances as odors is a mystery that, until recently, defeated most attempts to solve it."

"When scientists tried to explore the details of this system, however, they hit a blank wall"

"This would be amazing progress for a sensory system that was virtually unexplored five years ago. Axel and Buck's discoveries have galvanized the study of olfaction, and scientists now flock to this field, aroused by the possibility of success, at last, in solving its mysteries."

Apparently I was wrong. In the past five years significant advances in the study of the sense of smell have been made. I think my point is still valid though. Just because something has not been proven by the scientific method, does not mean it is not so.

 

[pledosophy]

oops wrong button.

 

[TamiW]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7742586#post7742586 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by pledosophy
Just because something has not been proven by the scientific method, does not mean it is not so.

But it also doesn't mean it *IS* so either. The best you can do is develop an untested hypothesis and present it as such. That is all.

 

[RichConley]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7742586#post7742586 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by pledosophy
J
Curious to know how many people you polled, how many of them had skimmers, and how many if any had ever experienced GBD. Also what local reef club do you belong to? Do they have a forum where we could view the posts.

I'm curious about the same sorts of things on your information. Without exactly those things, absolutely NO inferences can be made from either one of our sets of data. They say exactly what they say, and nothing more.

pledosophy, you're coming to conclusions that the data you have doesnt support. Your making inferences that involve assumptions that aren't necessarily true.

Skimmers may cause GBD, i dont know, but your data most certainly DOES NOT show that.

 

[pledosophy]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7743398#post7743398 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichConley
I'm curious about the same sorts of things on your information.

You should start reading my posts. Notice that once again you fail to answer any question into any statement you have made.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7701554#post7701554 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by pledosophy
The number of survey completed to get the 80% number was 85.

That would be 85 surveys completed.
Roughly 80% of those surveyed used protein skimmer.
Posts to such information can be found in the Gas Bubble Disease forum which I previously provided a link to.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7743371#post7743371 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by FishGrrl
The best you can do is develop an untested hypothesis and present it as such. That is all.

I disagree that it has not been tested, you disagree with the test methods and results, we'll have to agree to disagree there.

IMHO the ancedotal evidence gathered through the survey and the hundred plus cases of documented GBD is ample enough to warrant a theory.

Hey maybe someone will read all this and decide to pay for a microprobe to analyze the gas. Then at least we would know for sure, but I guess to appease you guys they'd have to do it a hundred times or so, it's just to expensive for a $40 fish, especially when the cure has already been found.

 

[RichConley]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7743968#post7743968 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by pledosophy

That would be 85 surveys completed.
Roughly 80% of those surveyed used protein skimmer.
Posts to such information can be found in the Gas Bubble Disease forum which I previously provided a link to.

And none of them mean anything without knowing what percentage of the general populus is using protien skimmers. THats where the whole crux of the argument is.

If 70% use protien skimmers, than they may be causing it. If 90% are using them, then theyre preventing it.

Without knowing that (and knowing what it was at the time of the survey), the numbers in the survey dont mean anything. You keep trying to dodge that point, but its the whole issue.

 

[TamiW]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7743968#post7743968 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by pledosophy

IMHO the ancedotal evidence gathered through the survey and the hundred plus cases of documented GBD is ample enough to warrant a theory.

No, it isn't! A theory has to be tested to be a theory. There is no way around this and saying otherwise is a fundamental lack of the scientific process.

Kevin, I know you mean well, but its these mistakes in the process and others like it that make it so difficult to take seriously. The methods are flawed because the people involved don't seem to understand the process involved with coming up with a solid, scientifically based theory.

Don't take this the wrong way, but please read the following:
http://servercc.oakton.edu/~billtong/eas100/scientificmethod.htm

This is why people like myself and Rich hear have a hard time taking anecdotal evidence as anything other than anecdotal evidence. No matter how convincing it may seem. Understand, I am not a scientist, but the critical thinking outlined by the scientific method is a simple way of eliminating errors and thinking critically about problems.

Right now, as it stands, the first attack that the data collected by the skimmer = elevated instances of GBD is the lack of data regarding the number of people with skimmers without gbd. The second is it hasn't been replicated. The data may at this point seem to point to skimmers but it is an untested hypothesis, and throwing around terms like theory give it more credibility than it currently deserves. This isn't someone being pedantic about semantics, but a clearly defined process that has worked for hundreds of years to weed out invalid data.

 

[EricBrian]

Great info Rich and Tami. Thanks for it.

 

[djc1026]

So technically speaking, according to the scientific method, the general lay people would be better informed if this issue were referred to as an hypothesis? Sounds like semantics? I haven't taken one thing from this thread, or any other thread, as gospel. This sounds like the beginnings of a holy war Can't we all just get along?

I believe Kevin gave disclaimers several times about the data and I've, me personnally, not taken anything away from what he has written other than additional information to consider. There is so much to this hobby and so many factors effecting a closed SW system that true research for the home hobbyist is almost impossible. And for what it's worth, the analysis of data collected from surveys is a valid form of research that should be qualified as a lesser preferred method and may not be generalizable to the entire population because of the small data set.

I love a good debate, but tagging along with this one, it seems right on the edge of hard feelings.

V/R,
Dave