Bayer pesticide as a coral dip...stop it! smh

[ritter6788]

Bayer saved my tank from an AEFW infestation and total shut down of my tank.

 

[Salty1962]

I use 10ml of bayer/4oz of tank water, but I've used upwards of 20ml of bayer/4oz of water with no ill effects.

Thx, I appreciate the info.

 

[Daniel@R2R]

I'm not sure what can be said that hasn't been said.

1) Yes, Bayer is toxic. That's the point. We use it to kill stuff that comes in on our corals. So, yes, it stands to reason (without needing scientific research) that if it kills stuff in the dipping bowl, it could kill stuff in the DT if used improperly.

2) To kill stuff is the point of all coral dips, so the above statement could apply to any dip.

3) Rinsing Bayer (or other dips) off of the dipped coral has been an adequate way to keep reefers from experiencing adverse effects on their livestock in their DT for years. Multiple rinses are recommended to ensure that the dip is gone from your coral and it can be added to the QT or DT. (QT is recommended.)

4) The number of hobbyists who employ Bayer as their dip of choice (with no negative effects) is astounding, and should not be discounted as proof. When there are so many reefs that are worthy of replication who use Bayer, I'm good with taking those reefers' experience as valid case studies that validate the use of Bayer.

5) Use of any tool in this hobby should be done properly. Most things are toxic in high quantities. For example, even over feeding is toxic and will kill stuff in your tank. Too much salt is toxic and will kill stuff in your tank. Use everything in this hobby as prescribed (some things require more caution than others).

6) Pests that come in with corals will kill stuff in your DT. So dip them in toxic stuff and watch those little pests fall off. Then rinse corals appropriately to remove dead pests and toxic stuff. Pest free tank = happy tank.

 

[Kungpaoshizi]

I'm working on collecting more data, this is the tangent I found last night.
The mechanisms of the pesticide affect nervous systems, it's an agonist I believe that causes paralysis.
Whether it's unknown or people have not chosen to look it up, corals do have nerves. They incorporate the gastrovascular system. This governs food and respiration.
Though it does seem to be more of a short-term effect, like many of you state, it's toxic. The question remains, what does it do long-term?

Though I will post later, I don't agree whatsoever with the 'many people use it, it's ok'. (just like the peroxide argument)
Tons of people smoke crack cocaine, are you saying that's ok? The people I've met in my life seemed just fine and I never saw any negative effects. Maybe after chronic exposure, but the bayer dip isn't chronic exposure is it? (unless it does bioaccumulate, which is worse than crack)
Research is there for a reason, anecdotal evidence is not fact. And many people in the hobby do not take concrete observations. Do I think the bayer caused the necrosis in my own scenario? Perhaps. But it might very well be because I bought most of those corals from the store that uses bayer and not the other store. Therefore it wasn't a single dip, it was a possible double dip over days, months, etc. There's too many unknowns to find an answer, but at least we can analyze what bayer does, and then determine if it's more stressful or beneficial. I know it doesn't get rid of every pest. (period.)

Otherwise to remove pests from corals, a substance does not have to be toxic. There are many essential oils that agitate smaller organisms, thus they flee.

As to 'user error' in my own necrosis events, it's plausible. But when I compare one LFS to the other in my town, guess which store has more necrosis EVERY time I walk in the door? The store that uses Bayer. Coincidence? IDK.

But I asked for cited research because to use something such as a neurotoxin, and not even understanding the mechanisms at play, is pretty callous imo. I compare this humanities general attitude towards nature, and we're destroying the world around us.

I bring this up not because I believe I already have the answer, I bring it up to help the hobby look at what we're doing. Because we could do it better.
I asked for cited research because everyone has an opinion, but facts are facts.

 

[Kungpaoshizi]

Again though, please state research.
And please do not trash talk me because I don't agree with you if you use it. That doesn't help anything.

I'm here right now, because people suggest using things, and they don't even fully understand what these things do. That's dangerous, and I care about the future of the hobby and the corals. Not saying someone who uses bayer doesn't, but they surely have not proven it's beneficial to the coral.

 

[redfishbluefish]

First off, I'd be the first in line wanting to see research on the use of Bayer as a coral dip. I simply asked for scientific dosing information in my earlier post and found none. What i got were folks currently dosing Bayer with concentrations pulled out of thin air. Is there any wonder some have had issues with the use, especially if they are dosing mega concentrations...I liked the ones who didn't even measure...."until it got milky white." If anything, I think this clear overdosing justifies the fact that high concentrations don't appear to effect the corals.

The likelihood of research being done on Bayer is nil. Our hobby is too niche and I'm sure Bayer has no interest in doing the studies. As it is, the product being used as a coral dip is misuse of the product. As far as publications on the mechanism of pyrethroids and nicotine based compounds on the nervous system, the literature is flooded with them. As mentioned earlier, the use of pyrethroids have been around for years (guess around 80 years or so), and tobacco teas have been used for well over a hundred years as an insecticide. Specific studies just aren't there on use of this as a coral dip.

Finally, I'm not sure why you singled out Bayer in asking for scientific information. If concerned (and all dips are "toxic"), this should have included all coral dip products.....see if you can find anything on those. Best of luck in your quest....but unfortunately I can only offer anecdotal evidence with a guess on my dosing regiment of 1 ml Bayer to 100 mls of tank water....and that is it kills every pest except for their eggs, and with proper use, no apparent impact on my tank.

I'll be following, but I've pretty much said everything I need to say, and don't believe I can offer anything else to the discussion.

 

[Daniel@R2R]

@Kungpaoshizi, the problem is that there isn't any research to negate toxicity (because Bayer, like all coral dips, is toxic). I think what you're asking for is evidence that there is not a long-term effect, and that may be a worthwhile project, but at this time I don't believe anyone has done that research. This doesn't prove your point. It simply means it won't be disproved by formal research. To the counter point, I don't think you can show by scientific research that Bayer causes long-term negative impact on corals. As @redfishbluefish says above, there's no research done on Bayer and corals...and there isn't likely to be any. So, as far as scientific research (on a grand scale) is concerned, we're at an impasse.

However, the issue I have with the point of your post is that you won't accept the thousands of reefs that are using it successfully as valid evidence (which IS used as valid evidence in many other aspects of this hobby). When you have a large sample of users using something successfully, I would submit that this sample should be considered , especially in the absence of controlled scientific studies. However, you refuse to accept this sample as evidence...BUT you DO cite your own anecdotal observations as proof of plausibility of your point. Why should we accept your observations with any weight (especially over the others in the much larger sample that do show success)? Your statement above about the LFS is just one example. Could there not also be literally hundreds of other possible reasons why one LFS would have healthier livestock than the other? Why should your anecdotal evidence be accepted as reason enough to decry the many reefers who are successfully using Bayer and tell them to "stop it," but their success in using Bayer in reef tanks that are thriving and beautiful should be rejected as "unscientific." Sorry, but this seems a bit hypocritical.

No trash talk intended here. Just making the observation that your point hasn't been made, and there is a problem in the point since you value your own observations as merit, but reject the observations that far outnumber your own as without merit.

 

[JasReef]

@Kungpaoshizi, the problem is that there isn't any research to negate toxicity (because Bayer, like all coral dips, is toxic). I think what you're asking for is evidence that there is not a long-term effect, and that may be a worthwhile project, but at this time I don't believe anyone has done that research. This doesn't prove your point. It simply means it won't be disproved by formal research. To the counter point, I don't think you can show by scientific research that Bayer causes long-term negative impact on corals. As @redfishbluefish says above, there's no research done on Bayer and corals...and there isn't likely to be any. So, as far as scientific research (on a grand scale) is concerned, we're at an impasse.

However, the issue I have with the point of your post is that you won't accept the thousands of reefs that are using it successfully as valid evidence (which IS used as valid evidence in many other aspects of this hobby). When you have a large sample of users using something successfully, I would submit that this sample should be considered , especially in the absence of controlled scientific studies. However, you refuse to accept this sample as evidence...BUT you DO cite your own anecdotal observations as proof of plausibility of your point. Why should we accept your observations with any weight (especially over the others in the much larger sample that do show success)? Your statement above about the LFS is just one example. Could there not also be literally hundreds of other possible reasons why one LFS would have healthier livestock than the other? Why should your anecdotal evidence be accepted as reason enough to decry the many reefers who are successfully using Bayer and tell them to "stop it," but their success in using Bayer in reef tanks that are thriving and beautiful should be rejected as "unscientific." Sorry, but this seems a bit hypocritical.

No trash talk intended here. Just making the observation that your point hasn't been made, and there is a problem in the point since you value your own observations as merit, but reject the observations that far outnumber your own as without merit.

100% this!

Also, I don't think Crack is ok nor is it as a coral dip. I'm not sure why you are comparing it?

 

[cnseekatz]

I use Bayer religiously on (almost) everything that enters my tank. I have never experienced any negative effects on my reef (corals, fish or inverts), but I can say that I have no pest flatworms, nudibranches, redbugs, or otherwise. Could it be possible that my reef would be MORE healthy if I didn't dip with Bayer? I suppose so. There are literally 1000's of factors that could make my reef more (or less) successful, and a slight decrease in exposure to pesticides could help some. That being said, I'll trade a potentially negligible positive effect on the long term health of my reef in exchange for killing bugs that would quickly and effectively crash my tank.

 

[Shep]

Following

 

[happyhourhero]

@Kungpaoshizi, the problem is that there isn't any research to negate toxicity (because Bayer, like all coral dips, is toxic). I think what you're asking for is evidence that there is not a long-term effect, and that may be a worthwhile project, but at this time I don't believe anyone has done that research. This doesn't prove your point. It simply means it won't be disproved by formal research. To the counter point, I don't think you can show by scientific research that Bayer causes long-term negative impact on corals. As @redfishbluefish says above, there's no research done on Bayer and corals...and there isn't likely to be any. So, as far as scientific research (on a grand scale) is concerned, we're at an impasse.

However, the issue I have with the point of your post is that you won't accept the thousands of reefs that are using it successfully as valid evidence (which IS used as valid evidence in many other aspects of this hobby). When you have a large sample of users using something successfully, I would submit that this sample should be considered , especially in the absence of controlled scientific studies. However, you refuse to accept this sample as evidence...BUT you DO cite your own anecdotal observations as proof of plausibility of your point. Why should we accept your observations with any weight (especially over the others in the much larger sample that do show success)? Your statement above about the LFS is just one example. Could there not also be literally hundreds of other possible reasons why one LFS would have healthier livestock than the other? Why should your anecdotal evidence be accepted as reason enough to decry the many reefers who are successfully using Bayer and tell them to "stop it," but their success in using Bayer in reef tanks that are thriving and beautiful should be rejected as "unscientific." Sorry, but this seems a bit hypocritical.

No trash talk intended here. Just making the observation that your point hasn't been made, and there is a problem in the point since you value your own observations as merit, but reject the observations that far outnumber your own as without merit.

The force of that mic drop is still causing ripples on the surface of my tank.

 

[MrDJeep123]

Again though, please state research.
And please do not trash talk me because I don't agree with you if you use it. That doesn't help anything.

I'm here right now, because people suggest using things, and they don't even fully understand what these things do. That's dangerous, and I care about the future of the hobby and the corals. Not saying someone who uses bayer doesn't, but they surely have not proven it's beneficial to the coral.

I think that the fact there is years worth of documented success should be evidence enough, yes? That the coral remains pest free after the dip is beneficial, yes? And that MANY of whom have used it for many years without detriment to the coral AND inhabitants of their tank itself is and should be evidence enough, yes?

 

[andrewey]

Kungpaoshizi- I say this in the nicest way possible, and I applaud you for your thoughts, but what you are suggesting and asking for isn't how toxicology works. What you are suggesting is known as the precautionary principle utilized by Europe's equivalent of the EPA/FDA.

As for your thesis about the toxicity, without a putative mechanism of action, it's really just ill-informed speculation. I don't mean to chastise you, but simply saying "nervous system" is meaningless. For example, pesticides are being studied for their role as endocrine disruptors. If we were talking about the effects of many types of jellyfish, we could link pesticide use to specific endpoints such as reproductive sucsess that utilizes several endrocine pathways.

In short, bayer has been used by thousands of hobbyists with no large macro effects to their reef. You may be right that trace amounts entering our systems are bio-accumulating or even in small doses having some unobserved effects. However, you have no proof of this and no suggested mechanism of action (specifics are important here). Without those, your conjuncture might be right, or it might be a vaccines cause autism situation. That's why we have these stringent requirements in place, so good science is propagated and bad science (hopefully) isn't duplicated.

 

[franklypre]

I've used Bayer on Acros more times than I care to think about, I will add in a be careful as it will soak in your skin and can cause issues. As far as long term effects I've seen no negatives when rinsed thoroughly, if not properly rinsed it can cause die-off but even then once WCs and carbon were run the tank came back around after a few weeks. The SPS that were dipped survived, however bristle worms, shrimp, pods and a few zoas didn't fare well. Anytime you dip a stressed coral you're adding more stress, but removing red bugs or AEFW tends to make the means justify the end. I'd never suggest putting a fluke tab in a tank but it sure did save mine from BCP thanks to Mr.Ritter!

 

[Frozn]

Mdbannister said it best.

I know a high end coral supplier locally to me. They dip every single coral in bayer. Thats hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of coral that has been dipped in bayer that continues to be sold and thrive in all of their return customer's tanks.

I recently broke down a tank and dipped every coral before placing into my new system. I had a few that were not doing well at all (part of the reason for a conplete overhaul.) Of all the healthy to unhealthy coral i dipped, I lost nothing. All my corals have shown drastic inprovement in color and growth. Which is also dually noticed in my daily calc and alk uptake.

I'll continue to use what has shown a proven track record of success.

My understanding is that an insecticide attacks the central nervous system. Corals do not have a central nervous system, which is why they are unaffected. Obviously the same can not be said for inverts and fish.

 

[PostShawn]

I think the biggest thing I took from the OP is that the future growth stages of the coral could be affected by the use of Bayer. That the earliest stage is most susceptible. It would be interesting to see a controlled test like BRS does. Two exact test tanks. Two frags of a coral from the same colony. One dipped in Bayer. One dipped in some other purpose made coral dip. Maybe even a third tank of one frag not dipped at all. Would be an interesting test to see over the course of 6 months or so.

 

[TheEngineer]

Love this topic! I dip with Bayer. No ill effects in my tank that I can attribute to it. I can't get behind asking for more proof than what others have shown in their experience. After all, that's really just a very large experiment with poor controls and poor data collections. Asking for proof aside from that is the same as saying, "Show me evidence that my fish won't be electrocuted by the light hanging over them."

The light can't electrocute them without touching the water. If you misuse the light and drop it in the water they will be electrocuted. I don't know of a study that says any of that but I'd say people here would accept that as fact anyway.

 

[d2mini]

Following.
Although I had never a bad effect about Bayer and that after using it for 6 years.

Same here.
And the coral gets rinsed twice in fresh saltwater before going back into the tank.
It's not affecting the tank.

 

[WesF]

Are there any long term negative side effects from coral dips? Hard to say but we have a large amount of test subjects with amazing reefs to suggest it's pretty safe.

The risk of dipping corals with "toxic" agents seems to be much lower than the risk you take by adding a coral to your tank without dipping.

 

[hart24601]

Another person here who uses Bayer because it's toxic and kills pests. Happy with my tank, never have seen any bad effects on coral or my tank from it over the years.

So many people using it with no ill effects is actually a valid reason. Many areas of science now use wide scale screens to evaluate phenotypic effects - such as clinical trials of drugs - many times the exact mechanism remains unknown but when phenotypic effects and side effects are seen in a large enough amount to be statistically significant those results are used. Happens all over medicne and science now. Clearly our hobby isn't a study, but there are just so many happy users for years now that's more than good enough for me.