i will stick to what is going on in the thread and the tests done
Exactly ho do you intend doing this when you immediately attack the product. You have a history of attacking this particular product on two South African Forums, as well as anybody who you (incorrectly) assume to be associated with it. Or have you forgotten to filthy PM you sent me just because you incorrectly assumed that I was involved in the product after writing an article on my experience with it?
You asked a question, which, considering the above, I knew to be loaded, but I went ahead and answered it. Your immediate reply is to call it snake oil.... Or at least :
this stuff is of the snakeoil dept
.
How exactly is that sticking to the thread and the test conducted?
I answered it in a manner knowing that you suspect that it might have contributed to your cyano you had in your tank... In fact, you emphatically stated this on another forum.
I ask you,: why do you suspect that it causes cyano?
Bcause it leaks some form of carbon in
your opinion? DId you test carbon levels before you added and after you added the product?
Regarding your questions being deleted, its not about the questions you ask, its about the way you ask them and when answered your retort is almost always an attack...
To say that it is untrue that it is biologically available is another propostorous contridiction. If it is not biologically available, then it would not be available to cyanobacteria.... RIGHT?
I repeat, the aeration of the cubes is not sufficient to dislodge particles of the media and have it float around a tank waiting for cyano to pounce and grab it.... The only thing which the friction does is assist with expulsion of the biofilm, which either becomes skimmed out of coral food...
There has been some concerns expressed that the "mulm" might end up in a tank and release the tied up nutrients when the biomass dies.... I cannot comment scientifically on this, but if its ending up all over the substrate, then you simply dont have enough flow... I also doubt whether the biomass would die and release nutrients, as I suspect it would carry on scavengeing whatever nutrients are in the tank simply from a "will to survive" perspectve.
while being aware of what people have experienced with it
So where in this thread did you state your experience with th product before attacking it?
Please elaborate on the snake oil claims? It claims to remove NO3, and those that use it are way past the point of debating that.
Anyway, no personal attacks, just won't sit back and allow you to sabotage a product. I prefer to look at the facts.
Which reminds me...
When one looks at cyano in low nutrient reefs, it does seem that PO4 is an issue.... Not C or N...
From Ernst Pawlowsky's article in Advances in Coral Husbandry in Public Aquariums. Public Aquarium Husbandry Series, vol. 2. R.J. Leewis and M. Janse, we can clearly see that running tanks with undetectable nitrates runs the risk of cyano, due to their N fixing ability, as long as other nutrients are available. Reality check, other nutrients are C and P, with C being available, whether we add vodka, zeostart, pellets or
nothing to our tanks.
I propose that you experienced cyano because the product was working, i.e. because it gave you ultra low levels of NO3.
I have said this in many posts on other forums, and here too, but I'll say it again: Any product which removes N biologically via additional Carbon, will inadvertently remove P. However, our addition of N relative to P is skewed towards P.
This will result in some P being left over for cyano to grab.......
My apologies to RC staff and members if the above might be a bit off topic, but its important to keep things and people in perspective....