Do Not Jump Ship - Borneman Salt Study

[ShaunW]

No you are right. I think they were trying to emulate what various salts do in a "typical " hobbyist situation thus the variety of organisms approach. Not sure of the formal hypothesis, but the talk was titled " The effects of various Synthetic Sea Salts in the Microenvironment" .

I believe they have reams of data that haven't been analyzed yet.

By doing such a study he intrinsically opened himself up to criticism, unfortunately. Believe me, personally I would like to know which salt is best, so I am saddened that I can't obtain any reliable benefits from such studies. They only act to confuse.

Shimek's study used the approach you are suggesting using sea urchin larvae exclusively... you know how that one turned out. LOL.

Now that was a study that I liked. It was well though out and performed in a rigorous way. I actual switched salts based on that study. I would have hoped that all biological system studies subsequent would have mimic the design. BTW it seems that Eric and Shimek are in agreement on IO.

This goes back to discussions we have had before. Even the well trained scientists don't have the time and or funding to do it slowly, multiple times etc. to yield results that are scientifically valid AND useful to hobbyists.
What we are left with by its nature is less than ideal in numerous ways.

Well anyway, all these studies do move the hobby ahead and it is commendable that they are performed. I just would hope that more and future studies can be performed to silence the critics rather than antagonize them.

 

[ShaunW]

I think they simulated replication buy doing large water changes( I heard 80 to 100%) with the same salt mix regularly.

This would not constitue a replicate.

 

[prattreef]

Amen.

 

[kimoyo]

Its cool that they made an attempt but I agree with a lot of what Solbby said. There are so many variables that need to be constrained. So much of the stuff in this hobby is anecdotal and not based on rigorous analysis. And this study will now be fact to a lot of people.

Looking at Borneman's post, if your testing for algae or bacterial growth why even have livestock in the tank? And from what I read on the marsh site they changed things during the study.

Anyone know how they lit the tanks? Bulbs burn differently and the spectrum of the bulbs would affect the growth of algae and other things.

They had to know hobbyists were going to change their systems (which are different from these tanks) around and start a bunch of threads because of this study. If your trying to have people wait for the full article and your interpertation/explanation of the results, why even mention IO and cyano in a post? If slow cyano growth is a criteria for good tank health, the first question I would ask is what is cyano, then I would ask why cyano was present and if its unexpected in the situation you have created.

 

[wxl14]

Another thing that I noticed is that it was not done in a clean room. algae and bacteria in a tank can be easily introduced by dust and other factors that are eliminated when done in a clean environment. That way you can eliminate outside variables. but I wonder how much that study cost to do it would be extrememly expensive.

 

[prattreef]

All true points.
Paul, just to clarify they presented this at MACNA, not simply in a post... a big project by the home club that ran long and didn't make it to the finish line in time, but under the circumstances they kind of had to report the findings as they were. But I agree this is asking for trouble in that regard.

Unfortunately, you are not likely to see the kind of peer reviewed replicable experiments you would like to see as there is little if any funding, and thus scant incentive for the handful of people who are truely qualified. Most have day jobs and as you know better than me, this stuff takes a lot of work. The only ones who have the $$$ in the industry are a few of the manufacturers and we wouldn't trust their results anyway.

Randy

 

[House of Laughter]

Paul,

In a line, 4 tanks were lit by a HO florescent of the same age and length and color spectrum

Unfortunately, they hung the lamp lenghtwise over 4 tanks with the center 2 tanks being right under the center of the bulbs - we all know NO and HO Florescent lights concentrate in the middle and disipates across the ends of the bulb. So the lighting was inconsistent across the samples

BUT, it was consistently inconsistent and will be interesting if that is considered (PPFD) over each tank over the life/time of the bulb.

Still an interesting study that could benefit from serious funding and scientific attention - agreed, though, with less controls needing measurement.

House

 

[ShaunW]

Its cool that they made an attempt but I agree with a lot of what Solbby said. There are so many variables that need to be constrained. So much of the stuff in this hobby is anecdotal and not based on rigorous analysis. And this study will now be fact to a lot of people.

It is really unfortunate indeed Paul. I am constantly frustrated by the anecdotal becoming dogma! We once again are witnessing it in the flesh.

Out of respect, we all say "A valant attempt, a cool start, etc". I even said so myself, but in reality if that was presented for review in a peer reviewed scientific journal it wouldn't be accepted due to the lack of replicate testing.

Looking at Borneman's post, if your testing for algae or bacterial growth why even have livestock in the tank? And from what I read on the marsh site they changed things during the study.

I wonder if they controlled for algae and bacterial additions.

Anyone know how they lit the tanks? Bulbs burn differently and the spectrum of the bulbs would affect the growth of algae and other things.

Just another variable to the mix of the many that could be proposed.

They had to know hobbyists were going to change their systems (which are different from these tanks) around and start a bunch of threads because of this study. If your trying to have people wait for the full article and your interpertation/explanation of the results, why even mention IO and cyano in a post?

Exactly why care should be displayed.

If slow cyano growth is a criteria for good tank health, the first question I would ask is what is cyano, then I would ask why cyano was present and if its unexpected in the situation you have created.

Who knows. Maybe IO is bad, the trouble is we will never know for sure without addressing one question at a time.

 

[masterswimmer]

Another thing that I noticed is that it was not done in a clean room. algae and bacteria in a tank can be easily introduced by dust and other factors that are eliminated when done in a clean environment. That way you can eliminate outside variables. but I wonder how much that study cost to do it would be extrememly expensive.

The control group was in a lab with HEPA filters running. Once again, an attempt at keeping it clean.

a) due to the addition of a fish, different nutrient levels unless the feeding of said fish were QC.

They fed all the tanks the same food mix, administered with automatic feeders with premeasured amounts of food.


I also don't believe they should have released preliminary findings of a seriously flawed study. Flawed by their own admission no less. Shaun, your points are right on target. Not being a member of the scientific community, only as an observer looking in, I would venture to say, presented with the information provided, the scientific community would not even consider this study worthy of publication by a very long shot.

 

[cali_reef]

Shaun, not being a scientist my self, the data presented is a great starting point for me. How does someone not knowing everything about salt mixes (about 8-10 brands\labels available) suppose to know which one is better?? How did you selected the salt you are currently using? Are you certain that is the best salt for your tank by comparing the results with other brands? I used about 4-5 brands during my short experience in the hobby and I would say the method they used is a lot better than I did to decide which brand is "better". I don't think anyone here selected the salt they are currently using by any type of scientific test standards.

He logged measurements of all the typical parameter from each time salt water is mixed, the result of that were fairly consistent (but they did not mention how many different batch of the same brand salt were used in the test). The tanks with red slime algae growth were pretty consistent with each water change(they clean the tank at each water change), and my personal experience with the few brands is the same. I don't care much about growth of corals from the study, I don't want my coral to grow too much at this point. I do want to use the salt that mixes clear, with high PH, natural Alk, Mg, Ca and other trace element values, or as close to it as possible.

I don't think people should be bashing them for doing the test in the way they did it or how they release it. IMO, they did a great job in doing the test and the effort should be recognized. Each person can decide how they will interpret and treat the information provided.

 

[Deanos]

Shaun, not being a scientist my self, the data presented is a great starting point for me. How does someone not knowing everything about salt mixes (about 8-10 brands\labels available) suppose to know which one is better?? How did you selected the salt you are currently using? Are you certain that is the best salt for your tank by comparing the results with other brands? I used about 4-5 brands during my short experience in the hobby and I would say the method they used is a lot better than I did to decide which brand is "better". I don't think anyone here selected the salt they are currently using by any type of scientific test standards.

He logged measurements of all the typical parameter from each time salt water is mixed, the result of that were fairly consistent (but they did not mention how many different batch of the same brand salt were used in the test). The tanks with red slime algae growth were pretty consistent with each water change(they clean the tank at each water change), and my personal experience with the few brands is the same. I don't care much about growth of corals from the study, I don't want my coral to grow too much at this point. I do want to use the salt that mixes clear, with high PH, natural Alk, Mg, Ca and other trace element values, or as close to it as possible.

I don't think people should be bashing them for doing the test in the way they did it or how they release it. IMO, they did a great job in doing the test and the effort should be recognized. Each person can decide how they will interpret and treat the information provided.

Great post, Pierce :irked:! I was thinking of writing something similar :snail:

 

[bad coffee]

Here's a link to another salt study.

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2005/11/aafeature1

B

 

[ShaunW]

Shaun, not being a scientist my self, the data presented is a great starting point for me. How does someone not knowing everything about salt mixes (about 8-10 brands\labels available) suppose to know which one is better?? How did you selected the salt you are currently using? Are you certain that is the best salt for your tank by comparing the results with other brands? I used about 4-5 brands during my short experience in the hobby and I would say the method they used is a lot better than I did to decide which brand is "better". I don't think anyone here selected the salt they are currently using by any type of scientific test standards.

He logged measurements of all the typical parameter from each time salt water is mixed, the result of that were fairly consistent (but they did not mention how many different batch of the same brand salt were used in the test). The tanks with red slime algae growth were pretty consistent with each water change(they clean the tank at each water change), and my personal experience with the few brands is the same. I don't care much about growth of corals from the study, I don't want my coral to grow too much at this point. I do want to use the salt that mixes clear, with high PH, natural Alk, Mg, Ca and other trace element values, or as close to it as possible.

I don't think people should be bashing them for doing the test in the way they did it or how they release it. IMO, they did a great job in doing the test and the effort should be recognized. Each person can decide how they will interpret and treat the information provided.

First off I am not bashing them!

You are indeed correct, this is a great stepping stone. In reality I am sure that they didn't expect the results they got, since they initially proposed one thing and found out something else in the process (different salts promote algae growth more than others). But Eric is a scientist, so he does understand all the points I make, and I am sure he has very good reasons for what he did and why. But it is important that such studies be performed with the nessesary rigor. Otherwise, why do them at all if you can't repeat them showing the same results, and what is discovered isn't fact. The problem arises when this experiment is repeated. What happens when someone else doesn't show the same thing with another one sample experiment? Then it's back to square one. This is why experiments are repeated enough times to expose the true nature of the biology and uncover the FACT!

As an aquarist I would like to know which salt to use. We all do? But what facts have been found to date?

 

[spykes]

If slow cyano growth is a criteria for good tank health, the first question I would ask is what is cyano, then I would ask why cyano was present and if its unexpected in the situation you have created.

cyano IMo isnt bad for the tank ethier. cyano is one of the very bacteria that can synthsis glucose using light and Co2. It's makes oxygen so i still dont get why cyano is a bad thing. If it spreads all over your tank it means your doing something wrong, but cyano can also grow in a good reefer's tank with great levels. It cannot inicate if your tank is bad, because all our tanks has adiquite growth medium for cyano.

 

[kimoyo]

I could swear that I introduced tube worms (possibly a good thing) in my tank with one snail addition.

If your going to measure the quality of salt by algae/bacteria growth then why even have livestock? Everytime you put livestock in the tank how can you know what your adding? How do you know you introduced the same stuff to each tank? Why not just have bare tanks with water (from the same source) and use sunlight. If sunlight is not an option, get small fixtures and rotate them between the tanks. Introduce the same nitrogen source, do your waterchanges and watch. Boring but it seems a lot better than adding random livestock to a controlled experiment.

Cyano is a bacteria thats been around for a long time. If cyano bacteria is growing at an increase rate would beneficial bacteria be growing at an increase rate also? Is this a good thing or a bad thing? I don't know but I don't think its a simple answer. People have seen cyano growth in both zeovit and prodibo when dosing too much of their bacteria food and people pay good money for that stuff .

Borneman puts himself out there as a scientist. He publicly tore into those guys who did the vodka experiments when they submitted an article to reefkeeping. He didn't allow it to be published but bashed it in a response piece. I think he should be held up to the same scrutiny he's shown others in this hobby over the years. Any experiment can be explained in a digestible manner. Presenters do it all the time, they talk to their audience. You make it more basic for those not familiar with the work and more complicated for those who are but that doesn't change the value of the work you've done. I haven't seen the study yet but the fact that he's saying there were mistakes doesn't sound good especially since hobbyist are making changes based on it.

What's funny to me is that IO was the worst and RC was the best and people have been saying they are the same salt with different buckets for years :lol2:.

 

[spykes]

First off I am not bashing them!

You are indeed correct, this is a great stepping stone. In reality I am sure that they didn't expect the results they got, since they initially proposed one thing and found out something else in the process (different salts promote algae growth more than others). But Eric is a scientist, so he does understand all the points I make, and I am sure he has very good reasons for what he did and why. But it is important that such studies be performed with the nessesary rigor. Otherwise, why do them at all if you can't repeat them showing the same results, and what is discovered isn't fact. The problem arises when this experiment is repeated. What happens when someone else doesn't show the same thing with another one sample experiment? Then it's back to square one. This is why experiments are repeated enough times to expose the true nature of the biology and uncover the FACT!

As an aquarist I would like to know which salt to use. We all do? But what facts have been found to date?

i have always known IO and RC being the best. I dont know how but it's just my instinct after trying so many salts. But shuan i do agree with you. There are too many variables going thru those tanks. I hate to say i think bornman couldve anaylized the salt contant and then measuring each specific depletion of each chemicals. Other then that i like to ask how does he determine which salt is more readly for fauna. because that is the main thing about our tanks. He used autoclaved sterialization for the CC but i dont get it why does he use sterialized CC when he doesnt measure bacterial count. he should use a centrifuge with a sample of CC and sperate bacteria with the solid. he should do a serial dilution and streek plate count to tell how many bacteria exist ? i dont get what borman is doing with so many variable and such undefined results.

 

[cali_reef]

What's funny to me is that IO was the worst and RC was the best and people have been saying they are the same salt with different buckets for years :lol2:.

Paul, where did you see Reef Crystal was tested as the best?

 

[spykes]

im saying sanjay is the light guy, but we all dont do what he does for a living. why the hell are hobbist relaying on his scientific results so damn much? because his test are the real deal.

 

[ShaunW]

I could swear that I introduced tube worms (possibly a good thing) in my tank with one snail addition.

If your going to measure the quality of salt by algae/bacteria growth then why even have livestock? Everytime you put livestock in the tank how can you know what your adding? How do you know you introduced the same stuff to each tank? Why not just have bare tanks with water (from the same source) and use sunlight. If sunlight is not an option, get small fixtures and rotate them between the tanks. Introduce the same nitrogen source, do your waterchanges and watch. Boring but it seems a lot better than adding random livestock to a controlled experiment.

Cyano is a bacteria thats been around for a long time. If cyano bacteria is growing at an increase rate would beneficial bacteria be growing at an increase rate also? Is this a good thing or a bad thing? I don't know but I don't think its a simple answer. People have seen cyano growth in both zeovit and prodibo when dosing too much of their bacteria food and people pay good money for that stuff .

Borneman puts himself out there as a scientist. He publicly tore into those guys who did the vodka experiments when they submitted an article to reefkeeping. He didn't allow it to be published but bashed it in a response piece. I think he should be held up to the same scrutiny he's shown others in this hobby over the years. Any experiment can be explained in a digestible manner. Presenters do it all the time, they talk to their audience. You make it more basic for those not familiar with the work and more complicated for those who are but that doesn't change the value of the work you've done. I haven't seen the study yet but the fact that he's saying there were mistakes doesn't sound good especially since hobbyist are making changes based on it.

What's funny to me is that IO was the worst and RC was the best and people have been saying they are the same salt with different buckets for years :lol2:.

So true! and so well said Paul, .

 

[kimoyo]

Paul, where did you see Reef Crystal was tested as the best?

From the first post of this RC thread.