![]() |
|
SPONSORED LINKS BY GOOGLE |
|
2
29th January 08:38
External User
Posts: 1
|
IMHO, a good, low P, water treatment carbon, is fine.
Lignite based, is also fine. Can't imagine why I'd pay more to have some percentage of the product be desigined for something "other" than water treatment. Oh, and, they set off one of Bill's official "Run Far, Run Fast" rules.... From: http://www.hdltd.com/products/p_tribase.html Uh huh. Would that "special" carbon be your basic run-of-the-mill waste water treatment carbon? Would those "special" bugs be your basic run-of-the-mill nitrifying types? News flash: nitrifying bacteria aggressively colonize carbon. That, actually, is one of the major problems in using it properly. BTW, how many reef tanks need to remove... and I quote, again... "Bathroom smells"? "Camphor"? "Cheese odors"? and, um, "Burning fat odors"? Maybe you should do your customers a favor. They've spent a freaking-fortune on their reefs. Respect that. As greedy as you may be, "Just Say No" to non-targeted applications. That way ... they might come back. ********************************** 'cus most packaged bacteria are a well known waste of money. You don't have to add that which nature places in your tank with such affirmative force that you'd have to take extreme measures to stop it. Why review that which one doesn't need? Then you should know about the Nitrogen cycle, and treat your customers a little better than marks-in-waiting. Help them set up their tank correctly. You're welcome. |
|
|
4
29th January 10:42
External User
Posts: 1
|
They do seem to be trying just a *bit* too hard to promote the stuff,
don't they? -- www.ericschreiber.com |
|
|
6
29th January 10:42
External User
Posts: 1
|
IME stick it in the same pile as cycle, not quite biospira, but not quite snake oil, it
works a little. -- Richard Reynolds Richard.Reynolds@usa.net |
|
|
8
29th January 10:42
External User
Posts: 1
|
In your enthusiasm to attack William, do try at least to stick to
relevant information and not let your commentary run to the absurd side of assumption. He's not wrong. He wrote "most packaged bacteria are a well known waste of money", which is true. 'Most' does not equal or imply 'all', as you apparently thought he wrote. Oh yeah, one last thing. Paragraph breaks. Try them sometime. -- www.ericschreiber.com |
|
|
10
29th January 12:45
External User
Posts: 1
|
Define "work", define "stuff".
Broken Bill rule. Magic Elixir. Run. Run far, run fast. Run from anybody that would sell you "magic" for inclusion into your multi-thousand dollar investment. If they can't itemize the content, if they can't explain the product's function in detail, if they won't explain how the product improves upon well working, and long established, regimens, then I must assume "buyer beware". Here's the assumption I personally make when I see this sort of stuff.... The purveyor is more interested in the profit than anything else. They must not really know, or care, or are unable to legally advertise any true and measurable benefit, what the stuff does. They want me to buy a pig-in-a-poke. Nobody spends good time and money refuting junk. Your phrase, not mine. Typical marketing. Gee, "Only YOU, personally, can see how well it works for you!" That, alone, represents X thousands of units sold. Why would anyone look "into it closely"? We have long established science on how an aquarium cycles. That is an educational problem. Either you teach them, or their soon-to-be dead fish will teach them. My ethics lie in that place where the professional does the right thing. You should know that nitrifying bacteria are ubiquitous, so innoculants are of dubious value. Well, you claim to be in the LFS business. You are using the newsgroups to vet product. The charter for the .aquaria groups is clearly non-commercial. The fact you're doing this says something about you. Nor was I insinuating anything about you. I don't know you from anything other than what I might derive from the parent post. I was condemning the LFS industry generally, and maybe even the modern American vision of "Greed Is Good(tm)". Yet, you, yourself, say above... If they have so advanced the state of the art, then why are they be unable to demonstrate their claims a bit better? You won't get a testimonial from me. To answer this question, both legally and negatively, would require I buy at least 1 bottle and perform a scientific analysis. Of course, you'll take anyone that takes your bait and claims that "It's Great!" straight to the bank. I'm not going to fall for that trap. Nor should anyone else. But, here's a blurb for you that speaks to the general issue of add-in bacteria inoculation... The following from: http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Hills/2637/faq.html Recently some commercial products have appeared, such as Cycle or Sure-Start, claiming to contain live bacteria (Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter) that will speed up or eliminate your cycling process. It is very difficult to evaluate their claims, because most people only start up one aquarium at a time, and thus cannot provide "double blind" tests on the effectiveness of such products. There have been one instance reported in the Aquatic Plant Digest of a person who cycled two tanks at the same time, one with Cycle and one without, and directly compared the cycling time between the two (by monitoring ammonia, nitrite and nitrate). He found no difference. There are two problems with these products, one is the freshness issue mentioned in the article on cycling, and the other is the fact that our previous assumptions about the specific bacteria responsible for the cycling process may be WRONG! Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter bacteria have traditionally been assumed to perform the function of converting ammonia to nitrate in aquaria. However, they were identified using bacterial culturing techniques that were prone to errors. Dr. Tim Hovanec, using modern RNA analysis, found almost none of these bacteria in mature freshwater aquaria. Instead, he found large populations of Nitrospiras that could be performing these nitrifying functions. His research was published in the scientific literature in 1996 (the August issue of Applied and Environmental Microbiology) and in the December 1996 and January 1997 issues of Aquarium Fish Magazine. If his research conclusions are correct, then these commercial products such as Cycle and Sure-Start are packaging the wrong bacteria! My opinion is that you would be better off saving your money, and just use some water or gravel from an established aquarium to seed your tank. |
|
|
|