Protein Skimmer

[TamiW]

Originally posted by
djc1026
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.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7652873#post7652873 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by pledosophy

Some people warn against them because research has shown that protein skimmers increase the rate at which seahorses contract GBD is they are already predisposed to it.

This, and statements like this, are what make me cringe. The term "research" tends to lend itself to mean scientifically rigorous collection of data. As explained above, there are flaws in the collection of data with the survey; and it doesn't hold up to scrutany.

Data collection is a form of research, true, but it must be set up to eliminate as many possible errors and again, hold up to scrutany. RichConley and myself have pointed out a huge glaring flaw that just wouldn't hold up. And if that data can be tested, it must before it can possibly be considered as useful.

As for the term "theory" its as much semantics as calling a bus a jet. They're both vehicles, but its still fundamentally wrong. To the lay person, the corruption of the term theory makes it seem like its little more than a guess. "Oh, evolution? Its just a theory!" And to someone that understands what theory is supposed to mean, they're going to the the intelligent design theory and say "Well, its been rigorously tested, it must be accurate!" Neither which are correct. (examples, of course.)

The best way to look at it is if the data would hold up in a peer reviewed journal. Would it hold up to public scrutany of all the methodology used? If not, then its little use to anyone. Its not that peer reviewed journals are some special club that must like you to gain acceptance. They are a resource in research to look for flaws in the research methods used, to hopefully refine and correct mistakes. Anyone that can't take criticism shouldn't be involved in research because that is a huge part of it.

I do realize this thread and my responses have become heated, and to that I apologize. I've just made this argument so many times and it continues to fall on dead ears, so I'm a little sensitive about it.

 

[djc1026]

Fair enough Tami

I definitely understand the dilemmas of research. In my field of domestic violence prevention, we can only analyze data that is gathered from situations. It is unethical to put couples in a controlled environment in effort to illicit violent responses to study.

If I were to explain the principles, conclusions, results, if not theories as used in the world of psychology, they would not hold up to the scrutiny of the step by step process of the scientific method. Yet there are thousands of research articles published in respected peer reviewed journals. The research was done as scientifically as possible given the constraints of the subject matter.

All research is valid and all research is flawed. It's all valid because it at the very least tells us that's not the way to do something. It's all flawed because it's conducted or interpreted by human beings.

Anyway, it's just plain inspiring to see the research passion among hobbyists and you will almost always, if not always, have opposing points of view no matter what area you are in. Because the other way to look at this, is anyone researching any other contributing factors, like the oxygenation of large macro beds and the release of micro bubbles from them? Now I'm not trying to start something else, just making a point.

Anyway, I just appreciate, the input from you, Kevin and Rich, as well as the others that have chimed in with their input.

Dave

 

[RichConley]

Using your domestic violence as an example:
(numbers arbitrary)

1. 90% of abused women live in houses.


Assumption: Living in a house increases your chance of being abused.'


The problem is, without knowing what percentage of women live in houses, the 90% of abused women living in houses 1) doesnt tell you anything, and 2) leads to the false assumption that living in a house is causing it.

Thats all we're trying to stop: people making assumptions based on data that is incomplete, and misleading.

 

[Lacrosseboss18]

I used to run a remora on mine

 

[EricBrian]

So, Fishguy13, is all of this helping you come to a conclusion?

 

[djc1026]

Very good Eric, sorry for my part in the hijack Fishguy.

As I've stated, I personally use a skimmer on my tank and think it is beneficial, due to the waste produced by seahorses.

Dave

 

[TamiW]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7754090#post7754090 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichConley
Using your domestic violence as an example:
(numbers arbitrary)

1. 90% of abused women live in houses.


Assumption: Living in a house increases your chance of being abused.'

Rich, we must think alike. Earlier, I was going to suggest that 100% of seahorses with gas bubble disease have long term exposure to salt water. Therefore saltwater causes gbd.



I too, apologize for the thread hijack. Hopefully this has helped fishguy and others make an informed decision!

 

[Fishguy13]

im going to use i once in a while

 

[djc1026]

Sorry Fishguy, I'm going to re hijack to address this research issue some more.

Rich, your 90% statement is not totally useless. If you wanted to, you could ask yourself is there something I can get from this? What is it about houses? 90%...that's pretty high...since living in a house appears to be a common factor, maybe there's something about location. And in fact, your arbitrary number is not too far off, 93% of domestic violence occurs in the privacy of one's own home. This may sound matter of fact, but you have to establish the basic stuff first to build on. If 93% of DV occurred in public, the public might be more interested as a whole to do something about it....assumption that needs research, I know. Anyway, the number is not useless, no the original 90% analogy does not establish cause and effect, but can lead to better research if questions are asked and investigation into the answers. That's all I'm trying to say. I definitely concur that the sample size and methods used in the quoted "research" is not generalizable nor establishes cause and effect. However, it may be a platform to launch better research if it asks more questions than it answers. Anyway, I understand where you and Fishgrrl are coming from as well as seeing potential from the information that Kevin has shared.

Dave

 

[RichConley]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7762703#post7762703 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by djc1026
Sorry Fishguy, I'm going to re hijack to address this research issue some more.

Rich, your 90% statement is not totally useless. If you wanted to, you could ask yourself is there something I can get from this? What is it about houses? 90%...that's pretty high...since living in a house appears to be a common factor, maybe there's something about location. And in fact, your arbitrary number is not too far off, 93% of domestic violence occurs in the privacy of one's own home.
Dave

You're missing the point. I didnt say occurs in the home (and home can be home or apartment). I said "Live in a house"

My point is this: If 90% of domestic violence happens to people who live in houses, and 90% of people live in houses, then there is absolutely NO correlation with having a house having to do anything with domestic violence.

What people are doing here is seeing "90% of violence happens to people who have houses" wihthout seeing that the overwhelming majority of people live in houses, and making the assumption that the house is causing it.

replace house with "skimmer", and violence with "GBD" and you have the previous 3 pages of this thread.


Fishgrrls example is pretty much the same. 100% of seahorses with GBD have had long term exposure to Sodium Chloride.

Without knowing that 100% of seahorses have long term exposure to salt, it appears that the salt is causing it, when in fact theres absolutely no causation going on there (there is correlation though)

When the % of things affected using some stimuli matches up with the general population using that stimuli, you have your control matching your experimental, and you've proved that the change in the experimental IS DOING NOTHING.

 

[Fishguy13]

w t f!!!!!!!!!! Stop hijscking my thread lets get back to Seahorses

 

[Habanero]

I do not use a skimmer and I have had seahorses with GBD. I can't see why, if GBD is caused by supersaturation (which would affect all the fish) or some mechanical process, why the seahorse couldn't just flush his pouch. My male seahorses inflate and deflate their pouches quite frequently.

 

[Samala]

Gang I really feel this thread has run its useful course. I'm kinda troubled by the elitist tone taken here on the whole 'research' (or not) debate. The material mentioned by Pledosophy was never meant for scientific publication, and as such isnt exposed to the strict (or not) research methodologies required.

Yes, the survey could use some work. However, it would be much more constructive if we would give ideas on how to make the survey a better one. Constructing a control group for comparison purposes was a great idea. If there is more like this I'd encourage another thread to be opened to chat about it, or, if we feel its too non-RC, taken to PM or email.

Its one thing to point out flaws in someone's approach, I understand that more than anyone here could imagine. But lets not resort to putting down entire groups of people, for whatever reasons, because of the way they approach problems and questions. Not everyone has scientific training, and those of us that do (I'm guessing..).. it would be great if you could contribute your ideas in design and methods.

Pledo I cant see why you couldnt post polls here and the second syngnathid board to get as many responses as possible. Particularly for the "do you run a skimmer" / "do you not run a skimmer" question. You may find that some groups of aquarists are natively predisposed to run one or not run one. For example, converted reefers might never second guess a skimmer on a SH tank. Those that came directly to marine tanks through seahorses may never think to try them out. I find hobbyists that had little previous aquarium experience tend to congregate at SHorg, and converted reefers go back and forth from here to there. Just a thought. I understand the 'political' undercurrent that may exist, but its for more or less scientific purposes. The more responses you get, the better, right? And you'll get a better overall idea of the seahorse keeper group and incidences of GBD as well I'd think.

>Sarah

 

[RichConley]

Sarah, the problem at this point is, that survey has already had some impact. In order to get an actual picture, you need to know what percentage of keepers were using skimmers at the time the survey was taken. Otherwise, the data is useless, and CAN NOT be salvaged.


"Yes, the survey could use some work. However, it would be much more constructive if we would give ideas on how to make the survey a better one. Constructing a control group for comparison purposes was a great idea. If there is more like this I'd encourage another thread to be opened to chat about it, or, if we feel its too non-RC, taken to PM or email."

We have suggested ways, Pledosophy just keeps denying that theyre needed.




Bad data is worse than no data.

 

[TamiW]

Samala, I think having a poll/survey here is a great idea. I'm wondering if we can get the mods on board; and get a couple polls; one regarding skimmer use and one regarding occurances of gbd with or without a skimmer.

I do appologize on my part if it came off as elitest. I am not, however, scientifically trained, just a stickler for the details. The scientific method was covered in junior high and every science class after that; so I guess I get frustrated when the lay person doesn't know it, because *I'M* a lay person.

I don't think we're going to inspire anyone at SH.ORG, especially here, to change their survey and I don't want to create a sh*t fest there by suggesting it. But perhaps something informal here can lead to some more data to work with.

Rich, I agree with you, though, bad data is worse than no data. Any day of the week I'd rather say I don't know than give someone information that could be detrimental. And I think that is my grip; dissuading aquarists from skimmers can be a huge disservice to them and their charges. Seahorses are big pooping machines, and without a good way to remove the waste, it can cause many problems. Skimmers help with that. Of course its not the only way, but for many people its the easiest.

 

[pledosophy]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7749509#post7749509 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by FishGrrl
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.

I'm sorry if my use of the word theory or research is offensive to you. I am using the words correctly.

Definition of theory
Definition of research

I do think you are arguing semantics. I did not call it a scientific theory, or scientific research. The analogies are becoming more and more ridiculous. I am not one who really likes to argue, for the sake of arguing. I come here to try to help people with there questions based on my research and experiences. Based on your earlier statements nothing I have ever posted on this site or others has any validity, but the people who have received it have been thankful, and have success. Hard to argue with results.

It is one thing to find constructive criticism, or alternative lines of thinking, I am very open to new ideas (I took you up on one of them ); but that is not what is happening here. If you wanted to bring up the theory about the rising PH level in a seahorses blood causing acidosis which would create poor respiration and CO2 exchange, kidney disease and gill disease; that would be welcomed. At least you would be making a contribution besides skepticism.

It is discouraging that while I continually grant the request for more information on the content I have posted, the favor is not returned by those granting the requests on the matters that they post.

So here it goes.

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.

Since Rich never gave us the link to his poll, I decided to make my own. It can be found
here

I would have like to get more responses, but I only have 60 right now. I do hope that the number of responses will keep increasing. I posted the poll on some other sites as well, but never got more then 3 responses off of a different site. The link is to the largest response I was able to gather.

Since that site limits each member to one vote per person, people who kept multiple tanks were allowed to post there different setups and then the poll numbers were adjusted to reflect multiple tank setups. The largest vote by any member was 6 (5 tanks with HOB skimmers 1 without). The survey was only of hobbyists not of any commercial breeding facilities. All the info posted in the replies and all the votes were counted. Nothing was disqualified.

Current stats

No protein skimmer 45.9%
HOB protein skimmer 31.15%
Protein Skimmer in sump 22.95%

So just under 70% of seahorse keepers from this poll do not use a HOB protein skimmer. Just under 46% of the keepers from this poll do not use a protein skimmer at all. However the poll for GBD from the same site showed that 80% of those keepers used a protein skimmer.

Fishgrrls example is pretty much the same. 100% of seahorses with GBD have had long term exposure to Sodium Chloride.

Without knowing that 100% of seahorses have long term exposure to salt, it appears that the salt is causing it, when in fact theres absolutely no causation going on there (there is correlation though)

Do you have any documented cases of any of the forms of GBD appearing in the wild? I have never heard or read any report of a seahorse with GBD in the ocean. All other seahorses diseases, but not GBD. Since it has never been observed in the wild it is thought that something in our aquarium systems is the cause. Sorry but for now, salt's out. The analogy is just a bit too far fetched, as are some of the others.

We have suggested ways, Pledosophy just keeps denying that theyre needed.

You have suggested that GBD was caused by salt, that it was a mycobacteria infection, and that it is caused by a stress response deriving from powerheads. All of which I have given you reasons, backed by research, on why these suggestions were not accurate. Truthfully all of them show that you have very little idea what you are talking about.

The only other suggestion you had that could be construed as somewhat helpful, was to get a survey of the number of people who use protein skimmers . I offered you the task since you so readily dismiss any link to research that I provide, however you were not up for it. If you really did survey 20 other keepers (minimuim needed to reach the 95% stat you gave) I would love to see the results.

Since the GBD survey is ongoing, the link provided above in response to the number of people on that site currently using protein skimmers is accurate. As stated it would be nice if there were more responses, but the level of participation should give some insight in to the number of people using HOB protein skimmers on that site. Hopefully people will continue to be involved in the survey and as the numbers increase we can get a better picture.

And I think that is my grip; dissuading aquarists from skimmers can be a huge disservice to them and their charges. Seahorses are big pooping machines, and without a good way to remove the waste, it can cause many problems. Skimmers help with that. Of course its not the only way, but for many people its the easiest.

Giving people the facts related to a desicion is not a bad thing IMO. In fact I believe this site is fueled by people who seek other peoples experience. You don't like my input because I clump a bunch of people's experiences into numbers fine, the members could dig through the posts themselves; there are several hundred on GBD that I have read.

If you think my remarks are disuading people from using skimmers fine. Please reread my first post where I stated I used one.

There are several ways to run a system. Many people keep seahorses without skimmers and at the same time have good water quaility. It is not hard to do. In fact if you read through this thread I have even explained different ways to accomplish that without using a protein skimmer.

Sometimes there's a big difference between the easy way and the right way. I'm not syaing using a skimmer is the wrong way, but making an informed desicion on the husbandry practices we choose to follow is definetly the right way IMHO.

Pledo I cant see why you couldnt post polls here and the second syngnathid board to get as many responses as possible. Particularly for the "do you run a skimmer" / "do you not run a skimmer" question. You may find that some groups of aquarists are natively predisposed to run one or not run one.

Honestly, I'm kinda burnt. I think I'm going to take a break from here for awhile.

I ran the poll on SH.org because that is where the GBD poll was taken. I'm on the site everyday so it is easy. I also ran it on the WAMAS board and Fish Forums, but the responses where limited at best. I don't go to the other syngnathid board much anymore, it's pretty slow.

Sh.org has just under 6,000 members. We are kind of a diverse group; we actually have a reefer or two. I know with me and many other people, we got into seahorses and then those trips to the LFS got us all into reefing. I have had a tank or 6 at a time. The thing that almost every member has in common is that they keep seahorses, which makes it in ideal place to gather info on seahorses. Many of the members there are members here.

It would be great if the different sites could all work together, I think the reluctance is less political and has more to do with some hurt feelings possible on both sides; much of them stemming from some events that happened recently. It is unfortunate things transpired the way they did to say the least.

I really feel this thread has run its useful course.

I agree.

:wavehand:

 

[RichConley]

AGAIN,

the percentage of users using protien skimmers NOW has absolutely, positively, 100% NOTHING to do with the survey. You NEED to know what the percentage was at the SAME date of the survey.

Your spewing out "OMG, SKIMMERS ARE BAD" has influenced the population on that site and created an environment in which skimmers are feared. The data is valid, but it is not valid in combination with the other survey, because the population is different than it was at that point.

quote: Fishgrrls example is pretty much the same. 100% of seahorses with GBD have had long term exposure to Sodium Chloride.

' Without knowing that 100% of seahorses have long term exposure to salt, it appears that the salt is causing it, when in fact theres absolutely no causation going on there (there is correlation though) '



"Do you have any documented cases of any of the forms of GBD appearing in the wild? I have never heard or read any report of a seahorse with GBD in the ocean. "

How is that relevant? That has absolutely nothing to do with it. My analogy still stands. 100% of Seahorses with GBD have been exposed to salt water. It must cause it.
Just like saying that 85% of GBD cases occur in tanks with skimmers without any of the needed relevant info.


When did this become about me Pledosophy? Everytime anyone questions the validity of YOUR data, you start making personal attacks.



The FACT is, your research is incomplete, and because it is incomplete, it leads to ASSUMPTIONS that are NOT supported by your data. You are passing those assumptions off as fact, and that is leading people to follow your advice, which is IN NO WAY supported by your data.



"DONT USE SALT. IN 100% of GBD CASES, THE SEAHORSES WERE EXPOSED TO SALT"

 

[TamiW]

Kevin, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Hopefully this thread though has given everyone different perspectives and thoughts on the subject to make an informed decision.

(Also, just a minor point, the example of salt causing gbd was strictly to show why correlation doesn't equal causation. But I digress, and I'll stop now, I promise.)

Okay, rather than making this thread a further ****storm, I'd like to take Samala's idea and make polls here on RC. Nanook has agreed to sticky them. Of course, there will be problems with the limited nature of these polls, but it might give some background information on a different population of people keeping seahorses.

Since there can only be one question per poll, and we don't want to get crazy, I am thinking two polls. The first will be just how many people use skimmers vs those that don't. The second will be the occurance of gas bubble disease with skimmers vs not. Here are the questions I was thinking of.

Use of skimmer.

1) I use a hob skimmer on my seahorse system(s)

2) I use a sump skimmer on my seahorse system(s)

3) I use other skimmer skimmer on my seahorses system(s)

4) I use skimmers on some seahorse systems, and some I do not.

5) I do not use a skimmer on my seahorse system(s)


Occurance of Gas Bubble Disease

1) I had gas bubble disease occur on a system with a skimmer

2) I had gas bubble disease occur on a system without a skimmer

3) I've had gas bubble disease occur on systems with skimmers and without skimmers

4) I've never had an occurance of gas bubble disease

Please add your thoughts regarding these question. Anything I missed? remember, we're limited to one question per poll, so the answer need to relate to one question only. We could probably do more than two polls but that may get excessive and dissuage people from posting.

Please try to get your thoughts in asap, I'd like to get these up today.

 

[RichConley]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7772816#post7772816 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by pledosophy


Sometimes there's a big difference between the easy way and the right way. I'm not syaing using a skimmer is the wrong way, but making an informed desicion on the husbandry practices we choose to follow is definetly the right way IMHO.

I 100% agree. The problem is, your 'survey' is so flawed that it is leading people to make decisions on things that are not supported by any real data.

For someone who doesnt understand statistics, the survey looks like an overwhelming example of skimmers causing it, when in reality, it doesnt suggest that. It doesnt have a wide enough scope of data to suggest that. Its too incomplete.

heres another analogy. It is supported by as much data as your inference that skimmers cause GBD.

85-90% of women who are abused by their husbands write with their right hand.

That seems like a strong suggestion that being right handed makes you more likely to be abused, (The same percentage more likely as skimmer-gbd) when it is in fact just a side effect of population dynamics.



To PROPERLY survey to figure out something like this (and not even this would prove anything)

The survey would need to go like this.

1. Do you use a skimmer RIGHT NOW.
2. Do your seahorses have GBD RIGHT NOW.



If skimmers have ANY effect, you would see a higher ratio of 1Y2Y:1Y2N than 1N2Y:1N2N

 

[RichConley]

Fishgrrl, the problem is, your surveys cover too much time. If there is no corelation, than someone who kept their tank for 2 years without a skimmer and then 1 year with a skimmer would be twice as likely to have GBD occur during the time without a skimmer. Thats going to seriously skew the rates.