Phyto-Feast™

[sihaya]

If the study is sound...

It is. Again, I know you're not going to take my word on it... but you shouldn't ignore the fact that it passed peer review and is published in a reputable journal.

I distrust results of analysis of competing products sponsored by DT's.

It was funded by DT's, but that doesn't mean anything. In fact, because the research is now published in this journal (and now the intellectual property of the journal), it really makes it quite difficult for him to use any of it for promotional purposes. So what would be the point from DT's end other than to get the facts?

I also distrust DT's because when I talked to him he was more interested in telling me what was bad about other products than he was in telling me what was good about his product.

I know. And this is really sad and I've BEGGED him to quit doing this. Most people don't know exactly why DT's is so much better because all he ever talks about is why everything else is so bad.

For example.... he doesn't tell people about all the universities that use his product for research on especially sensitive animals for which NO OTHER product will work. In fact, it's only because of DT's that some of these research projects (one being done at Harvard Medical School) can even be done at all. But this is not what Dennis chooses to bark at people... much to my dismay. ::sigh::

He seems to have an axe to grind and makes me uneasy.

Yes, he's really annoying and he can be a real jerk (and I say this even as his friend). I wish to no end that he'd stop doing this to people. But however unlikable he is, that doesn't change the fact that he's right and that his product is far, FAR better than any other phyotplankton product sold for this hobby.

 

[Anonymous]

If the study is sound...

It is. Again, I know you're not going to take my word on it... but you shouldn't ignore the fact that it passed peer review and is published in a reputable journal.

There are plenty of studies published in reputable journals that don't cut the mustard on further review. However not seeing it, or the methodology involved, it makes little sense for me to continue to comment on it.

I distrust results of analysis of competing products sponsored by DT's.

It was funded by DT's, but that doesn't mean anything. In fact, because the research is now published in this journal (and now the intellectual property of the journal), it really makes it quite difficult for him to use any of it for promotional purposes. So what would be the point from DT's end other than to get the facts?

However, he is using it for promotional purposes anyway...that's part of what makes it feel hinky to me.

I also distrust DT's because when I talked to him he was more interested in telling me what was bad about other products than he was in telling me what was good about his product.

I know. And this is really sad and I've BEGGED him to quit doing this. Most people don't know exactly why DT's is so much better because all he ever talks about is why everything else is so bad.

It makes him seem like another snake oil salesman.

For example.... he doesn't tell people about all the universities that use his product for research on especially sensitive animals for which NO OTHER product will work. In fact, it's only because of DT's that some of these research projects (one being done at Harvard Medical School) can even be done at all. But this is not what Dennis chooses to bark at people... much to my dismay. ::sigh::

And that makes it even harder for me to trust. Super secret super projects that only his product works for, but he won't talk about it except for rumor...feels like the ecoaqualizer method of promotion.

He seems to have an axe to grind and makes me uneasy.

Yes, he's really annoying and he can be a real jerk (and I say this even as his friend). I wish to no end that he'd stop doing this to people. But however unlikable he is, that doesn't change the fact that he's right and that his product is far, FAR better than any other phyotplankton product sold for this hobby.

I think calling it a fact is off base. In your opinion, sure, but throwing around the word 'fact' makes it feel even more like snake oil than the attacks on competing products does.

Reed Mariculture hasn't yet responded to DT's recent attacks on them, and it will be interesting to see if they respond with the same professionalism that they used in the past. It was actually that professionalism that drew me to their product over DT's in the first place.

 

[sihaya]

There are plenty of studies published in reputable journals that don't cut the mustard on further review.

Yeah, but the majority of them do. Are you coming to MACNA? If you do, I'll give you a copy to read.

However, he is using it for promotional purposes anyway...that's part of what makes it feel hinky to me.

To a limited extent, yeah. But wouldn't you? If you have real research to support your product's quality, why not use it?

It makes him seem like another snake oil salesman.

Oh, I totally disagree. Snake oil salesman are smooth and likable... not anything like Dennis. lol

Super secret super projects that only his product works for, but he won't talk about it except for rumor...feels like the ecoaqualizer method of promotion.

They're not secret at all. And I know the researchers by name and the facts of their research. Dennis is just too busy talking about everybody else's phyoplankton to talk enough about his own. Which, again, I find unfortunate.

I think calling it a fact is off base. In your opinion, sure, but throwing around the word 'fact' makes it feel even more like snake oil than the attacks on competing products does.

Well, obviously, it's all opinion at some point. When I said "the fact that" I meant it more as an expression. There are facts about each product, but which you think is better based on those facts is always going to be an opinion.

Reed Mariculture hasn't yet responded to DT's recent attacks on them, and it will be interesting to see if they respond with the same professionalism that they used in the past. It was actually that professionalism that drew me to their product over DT's in the first place.

I'd say their response was tactful, not professional. In my opinion, their response wasn't nearly forthcoming enough to be called "professional."

 

[Anonymous]

So what is the name of the actual article? Maybe it is available for free elsewhere, there is quite a large number of people who do believe that researched information should be free for all and as a result some scientific, peer reviewed, places don't charge fees.

That and I do have certain access to otherwise not-free information via my school. But I'm on summer break

 

[sihaya]

Here you go:

"Comparative growth and survival of juvenile hard clams, Mercenaria mercenaria, fed commercially available diets"
By Emmanuelle Pales Espinosa, Bassem Allam *

Zoo Biology, Volume 25, Issue 6 , Pages 513 - 525

*Marine Sciences Research Center, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York

 

[sihaya]

Oh... and I forgot to mention, the research also supports what Dennis has been saying about the different strains of phytoplankton and refrigeration all along (regardless of brand!).

So even if you don't like research that compares brands, look at the part of the study that just tests fresh vs. refrigerated samples of different strains of phytoplankton.

 

[Anonymous]

Sara, can you ask Dennis a few ?'s for me?

OK, if it is live , why can't I start a culture from it? I realize I should get competing species, and the strongest will outgrow the others, but I only get an identifyable strain, nothing I can recognize from my phyto book....

 

[sihaya]

Sara, can you ask Dennis a few ?'s for me? OK, if it is live , why can't I start a culture from it? I realize I should get competing species, and the strongest will outgrow the others, but I only get an identifyable strain, nothing I can recognize from my phyto book....

Hmm... how did you go about the culture? If you used any tank water for the culture, then god only knows what could have grown in your culture. If not, then I'm not sure why you'd get an unidentifiable strain. Maybe it's just not in your book? I'll ask Dennis what he thinks.

The three strains of phytoplankton used in DT's are Nannochloropsis oculata, Phaeodactylum tricornutum and Chlorella. At the DT's farm they are each cultured separately and mixed only before they go into the bottles. Culturing phyto from DT's should yield you one of these three.

 

[Anonymous]

I read a snippet about algae in using it to extract oil (yeah I know silly) but they said they could not keep them in open troughs but had to be in sealed bags because they could get undesirable algae growing in it, so makes me wonder if it doesn't matter whether or not tank water was used.

 

[Anonymous]

However, he is using it for promotional purposes anyway...that's part of what makes it feel hinky to me.

To a limited extent, yeah. But wouldn't you? If you have real research to support your product's quality, why not use it?

But you said he wasn't using it for promotional purposes.

It makes him seem like another snake oil salesman.

Oh, I totally disagree. Snake oil salesman are smooth and likable... not anything like Dennis. lol

More his promotional material, not him.

Super secret super projects that only his product works for, but he won't talk about it except for rumor...feels like the ecoaqualizer method of promotion.

They're not secret at all. And I know the researchers by name and the facts of their research. Dennis is just too busy talking about everybody else's phyoplankton to talk enough about his own. Which, again, I find unfortunate.

If you and Dennis are the only ones who know about them...

I think calling it a fact is off base. In your opinion, sure, but throwing around the word 'fact' makes it feel even more like snake oil than the attacks on competing products does.

Well, obviously, it's all opinion at some point. When I said "the fact that" I meant it more as an expression.

I am not sure I believe you! You are too smart to misuse the word fact.

There are facts about each product, but which you think is better based on those facts is always going to be an opinion.

But the facts about each product are determined by who you believe. Right not, there is no consensus at all.

Reed Mariculture hasn't yet responded to DT's recent attacks on them, and it will be interesting to see if they respond with the same professionalism that they used in the past. It was actually that professionalism that drew me to their product over DT's in the first place.

I'd say their response was tactful, not professional. In my opinion, their response wasn't nearly forthcoming enough to be called "professional."

I disagree, as there is no good way to respond to attacks DT's made. I think the attacks were kind of like saying "when did you stop beating your wife?".

 

[sihaya]

But you said he wasn't using it for promotional purposes.

No, no... I said he was having some difficulty using it for promotional purposes. And he is. For example, the journal won't let him post the article on his website.

More his promotional material, not him.

If you're talking about the materials he passed out at MACNA 2005, I would agree they were obnoxious (though not untruthful).

If you and Dennis are the only ones who know about them...

Dude, I try to tell as many people as I can. But I'm only one person!

I disagree, as there is no good way to respond to attacks DT's made. I think the attacks were kind of like saying "when did you stop beating your wife?".

Reed's Phytofeast "live" is not really live. I do consider that a fact (and yes I mean fact this time). That may or may not render it useless, but it's still not live. Reed should simply stop calling the product live and focus on convincing people that the phytoplankton doesn't need to be live (assuming he can make that argument).

 

[Anonymous]

More his promotional material, not him.

If you're talking about the materials he passed out at MACNA 2005, I would agree they were obnoxious (though not untruthful).

That, and his more recent mailing and his website, past and present.

If you and Dennis are the only ones who know about them...

Dude, I try to tell as many people as I can. But I'm only one person!

You say you know about the research and who is doing it, but you haven't told us what it is and who they are - just that its critical and at Harvard.

I disagree, as there is no good way to respond to attacks DT's made. I think the attacks were kind of like saying "when did you stop beating your wife?".

Reed's Phytofeast "live" is not really live. I do consider that a fact (and yes I mean fact this time). That may or may not render it useless, but it's still not live. Reed should simply stop calling the product live and focus on convincing people that the phytoplankton doesn't need to be live (assuming he can make that argument).

True or not, it has very little to do with scope of DT's attacks and smears, which were not simple by any means. Dennis had a wide range of smears that it simply makes little sense to defend against because you simply cant win against that kind of thing - hence their short, professional response to unprofessional attacks. Responding to the plethora of attacks from DT's would be very much like answering the question 'when did you stop beating your wife'.

 

[ArtC]

I pulled the full article at work and read it. It seems reasonably put together and the conclusions are supported by the data. It makes no mention of funding from DT or any of the ten other vendors in the acknowledgements.

Here's the abstract. A brief search did not turn up any published corrections or letters criticizing the methods.

I don't know anything about the personal history between the companies, and I don't have any interest in learning! I have enough professional background to review the article, and I don't want to get involved in proving that either. So read and enjoy - I'm out of here

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi- ... /113493585

Comparative growth and survival of juvenile hard clams, Mercenaria mercenaria, fed commercially available diets
Emmanuelle Pales Espinosa, Bassem Allam *
Marine Sciences Research Center, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York

email: Bassem Allam ([email protected])

*Correspondence to Bassem Allam, Marine Sciences Research Center, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794-5000

Keywords
algae • feed • shellfish • aquarium • aquaculture • ornamental


Abstract
Hobbyist and researchers often use commercially available phytoplankton concentrates to maintain filter feeding organisms held in their ornamental or experimental tanks. This study investigated the nutritional value of 10 products available commercially for juvenile hard clams, Mercenaria mercenaria. Growth and mortality rates in clams fed these products were compared with those found in clams fed fresh cultures of the microalgae Isochrysis galbana, which is considered an industry standard for supporting growth of juvenile bivalves. Our results show a clear difference in feed nutritional value between non-living and living commercial diets, and among commercial diets advertised as containing live algae. Overall, results showed that juvenile hard clams fed fresh cultures of I. galbana displayed the best growth and lowest mortality rates, followed by those fed the commercial diet DT's Live Marine Phytoplankton. Growth and mortality rates in unfed controls were similar to those found in clams fed commercial non-living algae mixes or diets advertised as containing live algae (Phyto-Feast Live product). Results also showed that the nutritional value of fresh algae (I. galbana) cultures is lost rapidly when cultures are maintained at 4°C, suggesting that algae present in some commercial diets may lose their nutritional value during processing or refrigerated storage. The commercial blend, DT's Live Marine Phytoplankton, seems to represent a good substitute to lab grown algae for clams held in ornamental or experimental aquariums. Zoo Biol 0:1-13, 2006. © 2006 Wiley-Liss, Inc.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received: 21 December 2005; Accepted: 8 September 2006
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.1002/zoo.20113 About DOI

 

[Snowboarda42]

Woods,

Experiencing an Algae outbreak as soon as you dump something so nutrient rich into your tank is almost to be expected. Think of its as overfeeding very quickly. Its way too much for the bacteria in your tank to handle right away. However, don't give up on it just yet. What you need to do is set yourself a schedule. Look in your tank and see what will actually benefit from this addition. Things like copepods, clams, some SPS, etc. will definitely benefit from adding this product. Alot of people tend to dose phyto every other day, or every 3 days. Its personal preference. However, when you first start off, don't dose your usual amount. Dose 1/8 of what you want to eventually dose. Then work your way up each feeding. 1/8, 1/4, 1/2, etc., you can take smaller steps if you like. This gives the bacteria enough time to catch up to the added nutrients. Its just like adding a fish. Sort of.