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

[wavekitty]

Interesting thread...in my experience in this hobby, it is as much an art as it is a science. We can use the same equipment, strive for the same chemistry, buy the same species of corals and fish and still wind up with different results. We all come to this forum for anecdotal evidence because there aren't enough scientific studies about the many issues that go along with creating an artificial reef in our living rooms.

 

[maroun.c]

A few remarks:
-You lost some corals usign Bayer, We all lost corals using many other dips and had no choice but to continue to use dips. unfortunately corals arrive stressed and the dips will add to their stress. A considerable percentage of corals and fish don't make it through shipping/introduction process and pinpointing the direct cause is nearly always not possible.
-Lack of research on Bayuer use. Sure, it was made as a pesticide for your lawn so I doubt the manufacturer would invest in research on corals. its a product that was incidentally found to work and there is room for optimization in termst of dosing and dipping regimen. if you're worried about transferring some of it to your tank then just rinse much more.
-accumulation in tank, i doubt that is the case with how much the product is diluted to start with and then by rinses followed by the minute voume compared to tank and water chagnes in most tanks. as well as UV breaking it down on top of its physical half life, and the effective half life with all other factors considered.
-effect on coral itself, i doubt that is the case as I have corals that were severly dipped with double the dose and double the time once every 5 days for 5 weeks and I can show you excellent growth track. if its something you suspect is really consdierable or exisiting would advise you to get 30 corals dip 10 in any dip you prefer over Bayer, 10 with Bayer and 10 for control and track them over a year to try to work out some facts under similar keeping conditions.
Again this is a product which was incidentally found to work and by the statment of many causes less stress on softskin corals. we hav similar cases even in medicine where certain radiotracers were incidentally found to accumulate in certain tumors without a real explanation of the mechanism, and have become the standard for diagnosis without a real understanding of how, and why they do accumulate in those tumors. The risk remains the same and any mistake in dosing or injection methods can lead to considerable issues but this is the risk behind any act.
I'm fine with one wanting to investigate things out and have a better understanding of how things are happening but I'd let that be in the direction of trying to optimize and only if I have concrete statements ask people to stop using a product.

 

[tcarter1936]

I see mostly references to ecosystems, however our little tank ecosystems are much different concentrations will dissipate in our tanks rapidly.
Have you ever performed a 10,20or 50%water change on the ocean? Me as well as most have used it quite extensively and never had issue. I'll stick with it. Fwiw I do heavily rinse and repeat,like ten times.

 

[Daniel@R2R]

@Kungpaoshizi, your scientific breakdown above is based on Wikipedia? That's definitely not peer-reviewed. No academic institution worth anything would let you use Wikipedia as a source for an undergraduate research paper.

...but we'll assume for the sake of argument that the info is correct (even though you seem to have found at least 1 error yourself). So what? There's nothing in there about what it would do to corals. We already know it's toxic to motile inverts and fish. The toxicity to pests is the reason it's used (and I'm unaware of anyone having issues treating red bugs with it...so even if red bugs and bed bugs are somehow related, that doesn't seem to impact Bayer's usefulness on red bugs).

The digging through this info isn't the same thing as research on Bayer's impact on corals, and honestly, I'll give greater merit to seeing the LACK of negative impact on literally thousands of reef tanks in which it's been used than I do to loose inferences drawn from reading Wikipedia. The best you could do from this would be to use this info to form some type of hypothesis about what you think the product would cause in a reef, then we can look at the tanks whose corals have been dipped in it to determine whether the hypothesis is plausible. Any hypothesis you come up with will need to consider the fact that there are no visible problems in reef tanks in the majority of applications.

 

[Kungpaoshizi]

I'm sorry, unless you saw it, I said in the last post, "Thinking about this with a level head".
So strike anything I said before from the record. (otherwise some of you seem to cry about it )
As far as being "hellbent on proving it's bad", I'm not trying to prove it's bad. I'm trying to learn what it is, and it's interactions in our tank, so I don't make mistakes that endanger the organisms, or causes resistances amongst bad critters.

From the loose basis of the Wikipedia stuff, you can see a general trend from the other sources that are NOT Wikipedia.

If you doubt any of those @mdbannister then please, put your experience where your mouth is, and find the "correct" data that eliminates the recent data.
I'm going forward with a clean slate on background info for sake of discussion. I suggest you do the same. As ANY anecdotal evidence is definitely not peer-reviewed. No academic institution worth anything would let you use forum entries as a source for an undergraduate research paper.

Now, as for looking at this logically, it sounds like you're upset.

Given the fact this is a neurotoxin, and corals have nerves, that's a big tangent worth discussion SINCE IT'S RELEVANT. But to say nothing happens is completely emotional, please don't do that. I'm trying to be professional here out of respect for your viewpoint, please lend me the same respect.

Obviously you've never been involved in structured debates as I don't believe any of you have actually presented any scientific data beyond anecdotal evidence? (maybe I'm wrong)

 

[Kungpaoshizi]

In case anyone is not aware, again please correct Wikipedia if it's wrong.



Anecdotal evidence is evidence from anecdotes. Where only one or a few anecdotes are presented, there is a larger chance that they may be unreliable due to cherry-picked or otherwise non-representative samples of typical cases.[1][2] Anecdotal evidence is considered dubious support of a generalized claim; it is, however, within the scope of scientific method for claims regarding particular instances, for example the use of case studies in medicine.

The term is often used in contrast to scientific evidence, such as evidence-based medicine, which are types of formal accounts.[citation needed] Some anecdotal evidence does not qualify as scientific evidence because its nature prevents it from being investigated using the scientific method. Misuse of anecdotal evidence is an informal fallacy and is sometimes referred to as the "person who" fallacy ("I know a person who..."; "I know of a case where..." etc. Compare with hasty generalization). Anecdotal evidence is not necessarily representative of a "typical" experience; in fact, human cognitive biases such as confirmation bias mean that exceptional or confirmatory anecdotes are much more likely to be remembered. Accurate determination of whether an anecdote is "typical" requires statistical evidence.[3][4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

Don't like wiki's entry? Take your pick.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=why+anecdotal+evidence+is+not+evidence

For example, anecdotal evidence would be:
"I know of a guy who used bayer and had necrosis"
or
"I know of a ton of people who have used bayer and had great luck"

Both of these are uneducated statements based very loosely from experiences.
As Wikipedia nails it, it prevents things from being investigated using scientific method. Some people will actually take your word for it and that's as far as they go!

I'm trying to go further to determine if it's safe or not. Please don't cry, contribute!

 

[smokin'reefer]

Sounds like another DDT type arguement. The pests that it eradicates do much more harm than the pesticides. There are claims that if DDT hadn't been outlawed countless people could have been fed and many more not died of malaria.

 

[Daniel@R2R]

I'm sorry, unless you saw it, I said in the last post, "Thinking about this with a level head".
So strike anything I said before from the record. (otherwise some of you seem to cry about it )
As far as being "hellbent on proving it's bad", I'm not trying to prove it's bad. I'm trying to learn what it is, and it's interactions in our tank, so I don't make mistakes that endanger the organisms, or causes resistances amongst bad critters.

From the loose basis of the Wikipedia stuff, you can see a general trend from the other sources that are NOT Wikipedia.

If you doubt any of those @mdbannister then please, put your experience where your mouth is, and find the "correct" data that eliminates the recent data.
I'm going forward with a clean slate on background info for sake of discussion. I suggest you do the same. As ANY anecdotal evidence is definitely not peer-reviewed. No academic institution worth anything would let you use forum entries as a source for an undergraduate research paper.

I'm not the one who said true scientific research was the only valid proof (and then has repeatedly used Wikipedia as your source). Are you retracting that? By the way, you might have missed it, but I said, "we'll assume for the sake of argument that the info is correct." So, feel free to use it. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy yet again of setting a standard and then not abiding by it yourself.

The reef tanks I've mentioned are in existence which would allow for interviews of actual people who have used Bayer successfully in their tanks (FYI interviews and case studies are admissible as a valid form of research). However, for our little debate, that's not really necessary IMO. I'm fine with accepting the word of members of the community about their tanks.

Now, as for looking at this logically, it sounds like you're crying.

Sorry. At which point? No tears here, bud. Can we keep baseless personal attacks out of this?

Given the fact this is a neurotoxin, and corals have nerves, that's a big tangent worth discussion SINCE IT'S RELEVANT.

It's relevant to the conversation. It may or may not be relevant in the final analysis of any conclusions. By the way, we're still missing a hypothesis.

But to say nothing happens is completely emotional, please don't do that. I'm trying to be professional here out of respect for your viewpoint, please lend me the same respect.

I didn't say nothing happens. Please reread my response. I said nothing has been observed to have happened, and that any hypothesis you come up with as to Bayer's effects on coral should take that FACT into consideration. By the way, I've still not seen a hypothesis.

As for being professional, dude, you accused me of crying. LOL

Obviously you've never been involved in structured debates as I don't believe any of you have actually presented any scientific data beyond anecdotal evidence? (maybe I'm wrong)

Here you're trying to discredit your opposition, but with respect to the accusation of not having been in structured debates, you are wrong, but that's OK. None of us is perfect. I'm not sure how this is relevant to your point though.

 

[Daniel@R2R]

Sounds like another DDT type arguement. The pests that it eradicates do much more harm than the pesticides. There are claims that if DDT hadn't been outlawed countless people could have been fed and many more not died of malaria.

I think it's actually the argument that has been used with every pesticide (DDT included) or medication for that matter. The argument is basically, the benefits outweigh the possibility or occurrence of side effects.

I agree that they got it wrong with DDT, but they've gotten it right with a great many other applications and the mistake in the assessment of results with DDT is not indicative of a flaw in the argument. It's indicative of failed assessment of results.

 

[tcarter1936]

@Kungpaoshizi, your scientific breakdown above is based on Wikipedia? That's definitely not peer-reviewed. No academic institution worth anything would let you use Wikipedia as a source for an undergraduate research paper.

...but we'll assume for the sake of argument that the info is correct (even though you seem to have found at least 1 error yourself). So what? There's nothing in there about what it would do to corals. We already know it's toxic to motile inverts and fish. The toxicity to pests is the reason it's used (and I'm unaware of anyone having issues treating red bugs with it...so even if red bugs and bed bugs are somehow related, that doesn't seem to impact Bayer's usefulness on red bugs).

The digging through this info isn't the same thing as research on Bayer's impact on corals, and honestly, I'll give greater merit to seeing the LACK of negative impact on literally thousands of reef tanks in which it's been used than I do to loose inferences drawn from reading Wikipedia. The best you could do from this would be to use this info to form some type of hypothesis about what you think the product would cause in a reef, then we can look at the tanks whose corals have been dipped in it to determine whether the hypothesis is plausible. Any hypothesis you come up with will need to consider the fact that there are no visible problems in reef tanks in the majority of applications.

Couldn't have said it better. and not to bash the original poster but to say it's causing necrosis? isn't the reason we dip with Bayer to treat pests? who's to say the pest you were treating for did not cause the tissue damage I don't even measure my Bayer concentration I'm mixed so I have cloudy water soak and circulate. wait 15 minutes and start rinsing never had an issue even with sensitive acropora. it is a product that is proven to work. And I have yet to see any proven detriment. Good luck in your study but I don't think you're going to find very many allies to this argument on the site. It's a very widely used product. Also maybe we should look further into the detriment of other Coral dips. Especially ones that smell like Pine-Sol and don't list all their ingredients.

 

[Kungpaoshizi]

Simple Definition of research

• : careful study that is done to find and report new knowledge about something
  
• : the activity of getting information about a subject

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research?pronunciation&lang=en_us&dir=r&file=resea01l

And right now if you need a hypothesis to contribute, it would be, "the negatives outweigh the positives".

Here's something awesome to read I just came across. I wonder if any of it's actually true.

http://phys.org/news/2014-02-genetic-secret-mosquito-resistance-ddt.html

• 
  

 

[Daniel@R2R]

Simple Definition of research

• : careful study that is done to find and report new knowledge about something
  
• : the activity of getting information about a subject

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research?pronunciation&lang=en_us&dir=r&file=resea01l

And right now if you need a hypothesis to contribute, it would be, "the negatives outweigh the positives".

Here's something awesome to read I just came across. I wonder if any of it's actually true.

http://phys.org/news/2014-02-genetic-secret-mosquito-resistance-ddt.html

What negatives are you expecting? Positive outcome is obviously the removal of pests.

 

[Kungpaoshizi]

I guess if you wish to prove it's safe, the burden is on you. The manufacturer says not to use it, as does other research. Why do they say this? Obviously people in the hobby use it!

But upon reading so much, a question arises about only one small tangent. Are we provoking a resistance to it? The research that has been found weighs towards the correct position.

So a quick and dirty that you can do would be to find some redbugs(a single type of arthropod), do a low-level dip. Record the levels of bayer introduced. After the dip, return the coral and the red bugs to their own environments. Rinsing the red bugs just as you do the coral before returning.

Do this at least a few times and record observations.

Then you have at least a generic basis to say it doesn't provoke resistance. Which in reality is worse than physical damage to the coral which hasn't even been explored beyond generic appearance.

 

[Daniel@R2R]

I guess if you wish to prove it's safe, the burden is on you.

Actually, the burden is on you. The vast majority of independent observations show no negative outcomes (except in cases of misuse), so if you're going to say there are negative outcomes, you have to show that to be true. Burden of proof is on you as a dissenter.

The manufacturer says not to use it, as does other research. Why do they say this? Obviously people in the hobby use it!

Can you clarify what you mean here? Obviously the manufacturer intends for people to use the product (otherwise it's a very poor business model). Are you saying they don't intend for it to be used on corals? Please show where this is stated.

But upon reading so much, a question arises. Are we provoking a resistance to it? The research that has been found weighs towards the correct position.

So a quick and dirty that you can do would be to find some redbugs, do a low-level dip. Record the levels of bayer introduced. After the dip, return the coral and the red bugs to their own environments. Rinsing the red bugs just as you do the coral before returning.

Do this at least a few times and record observations.

Then you have at least a generic basis to say it doesn't provoke resistance. Which in reality is worse than physical damage to the coral which hasn't even been explored beyond generic, non-molecular or magnified, appearance.

If this is something you're concerned about, go for it. Could be a fun experiment.

 

[Kungpaoshizi]

Actually, the burden is on you. The vast majority of independent observations show no negative outcomes (except in cases of misuse), so if you're going to say there are negative outcomes, you have to show that to be true. Burden of proof is on you as a dissenter.
Can you clarify what you mean here? Obviously the manufacturer intends for people to use the product (otherwise it's a very poor business model). Are you saying they don't intend for it to be used on corals? Please show where this is stated.

If this is something you're concerned about, go for it. Could be a fun experiment.

A dissenter (from the Latin dissentire, “to disagree”), is one who disagrees in matters of opinion

You disagree with the manufacturer.

"For outdoor residential use" (you're disagree with this)
"The residual component is actually taken into the plant. Rain or water cannot wash off this internal protection! Listed insects are killed when they come into contact with the product or when they attempt to eat the plant." (you disagree that it doesn't wash off, there's long-term affects on coral, which house "plants")
"People and pets may re-enter the treated area after spray has dried"(you disagree that it's not safe for pets)
"This product is highly toxic to aquatic invertebrates and fish. "(corals are invertebrates?)
https://www.bayeradvanced.com/~/media/BayerAdvanced/Product Labels/Complete Insect Killer for Soil Turf - Concentrate - 40 oz.ashx

 

[luke33]

Interesting read. In the end everyone has opinions and will do what they believe works : ) Personally I do not dip my corals in Bayer, not would I ever dump stump remover into my tank : )

I use DDT instead as it wipes out all pests

 

[Daniel@R2R]

A dissenter (from the Latin dissentire, “to disagree”), is one who disagrees in matters of opinion

Agreed. That's how I used it. You disagree with the perceived results that the majority of aquarists are reporting from using Bayer. This places the burden of proof on your shoulders for 2 primary reasons:

1) From the academic research side of this: Your dissent from the currently observed and accepted conclusions regarding the results from the use of Bayer means that the research burden is on you to prove the accepted conclusion is incorrect. That's simply how research works. No research institution is going to take on the task of proving the general consensus to be correct when they already believe that consensus to be right. That is generally considered to be a waste of time and resources (and usually results in confirming the general conclusion was right all along). If you think the general consensus is wrong, then it is on you to do the research and show that to be true.

2) From a pragmatic standpoint: Most hobbyists already agree that Bayer can be used as a useful, effective, and efficient dip for killing pests with minimal risk of harming the corals (except in cases of misuse). Most of us agree that the benefits far outweigh any possible risks. If you don't agree with us, that's fine, but we're not going to lose sleep over it or take on the task of proving we're right about what we have already seen works in our tanks. We wouldn't expect you to do that for things that you use and have been found by a general consensus of reefers to be useful and safe for a reef tank. If you like it, and reasonable argument or research hasn't been presented to talk you out of it, you'll keep on using it.

You disagree with the manufacturer.

"For outdoor residential use" (you're disagree with this)

Actually, I don't disagree with this. I'm fine with people using it outdoors around their homes. I think that's a reasonable prescribed use for it. I reject the idea that it CANNOT be used for anything else.

"The residual component is actually taken into the plant. Rain or water cannot wash off this internal protection! Listed insects are killed when they come into contact with the product or when they attempt to eat the plant." (you disagree that it doesn't wash off, there's long-term affects on coral, which house "plants")

The quoted statement basically means that it is absorbed by the plant (ergo it doesn't wash off because it is inside the plant). Please note that it is "this internal protection" (pesticide inside the plant) that cannot be washed off. So, first, you would have to make the argument that corals absorb the pesticide like plants do (FYI corals aren't plants, so it doesn't automatically follow that they react the same way), then IF corals do absorb it so that it doesn't come off (leach out) with water, wouldn't it be plausible that only something that BITES the coral would be affected?

My hypothesis would be that corals do not absorb this in the same way plants do. However, even if they do, we'd only be worried about critters that bite a piece off of them. Also, it's worth asking (if they do absorb it), how long does it take? It's likely (from the info you've provided) that plants require prolonged exposure in order to absorb the stuff (since people aren't rinsing it off of the plants after 10 minutes). I would also suggest that our dips aren't long enough exposure for plants to absorb it (which, again, may or may not be relevant depending on whether or not corals respond to it the same way).

Also, I think you might try to make the argument that zooxanthellae is a plant since it is a type of algae. My rebuttal to this is that the term "plant" is extremely generic, and that in the context the manufacturer is writing they are referring to garden plants which are quite a distinct type of life form from zooxanthellae. Therefore, it might be worth investigating to see whether or not it responds in a similar fashion, but it would be a huge error to assume the same type of reaction (especially when observation seems to discredit that hypothesis). Furthermore, if it DOES react the same way, then we're back to what I said above about whether or not the stuff comes off (leaches out) in the tank. It would seem that it wouldn't.

Finally on this point, if corals did absorb it, wouldn't that likely create the same pesticidal effect on pests that got into a tank whose corals were dipped in Bayer at the time when they bite the coral (since that's the purported way it works with plants)? That is not an observed phenomenon (but might be interesting as a possible pro to using Bayer). I don't believe that's the case though since even corals dipped with Bayer are able to be overrun later by pests and eaten after dipping.

"People and pets may re-enter the treated area after spray has dried"(you disagree that it's not safe for pets)

I disagree? What gave you this idea? I thought I had been pretty clear that I affirm that Bayer is toxic to pets and pests alike. That's why we dip corals and then rinse them multiple times instead of dosing the tank.

"This product is highly toxic to aquatic invertebrates and fish. "(corals are invertebrates?)
https://www.bayeradvanced.com/~/media/BayerAdvanced/Product Labels/Complete Insect Killer for Soil Turf - Concentrate - 40 oz.ashx

The context of this use of invertebrates is referring to the manufacturer's intended use in outdoor residential areas. In what way is it toxic to corals? If it is, why are we not SEEING negative results in the vast majority of its use with corals?? You can't get around this question. Your hypothesis doesn't address it. What are the suspected negative outcomes, and why are they not being observed by most users?

 

[happyhourhero]

 

[Daniel@R2R]

Interesting excerpt. Where is it taken from?

Their definition of short-term exposure (up to 96 hours) would be considered quite long by our standards (I hope no one is dipping coral for 96 hours), so I'm not sure this will be relevant ultimately to the conclusion, but it is helpful in that it examines this question as connected to corals. If it took up to 96 hours to see those types of impact on absorption, coral spawning, and photosynthesis then it is still plausible that the effect is nil or negligible in a coral dip of 10-20 minutes. At least that seems to be the observation of most users.

 

[happyhourhero]

Interesting excerpt. Where is it taken from?

Their definition of short-term exposure (up to 96 hours) would be considered quite long by our standards (I hope no one is dipping coral for 96 hours), so I'm not sure this will be relevant ultimately to the conclusion, but it is helpful in that it examines this question as connected to corals. If it took up to 96 hours to see those types of impact on absorption, coral spawning, and photosynthesis then it is still plausible that the effect is nil or negligible in a coral dip of 10-20 minutes. At least that seems to be the observation of most users.

https://books.google.com/books?id=5...ts of toxic chemicals joost w van Dam&f=false