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

[hybridazn]

No where in that link posted above does it say that this product is highly toxic to fish and inverts. It only states to not spray it in ponds, streams and so on to prevent run off.

 

[JasReef]

I once read somewhere (probably on Wikipedia) and don't remember the quote well but I think it was Abraham Lincoln that said , "Don't feed the trolls".[emoji84] That is not pointed at anyone, just wise words to post by.

 

[Joeganja]

I think it's a matter of opinion. Everyday we add stuff into our aquariums that works for many and may not work for some. I saw a guy dip my coral in coral rx for 10 minutes and then 10 minutes in Bayer and his tank is amazing. It works for him. Every coral and coral species is unique. I think millies would be the less tolerant of the stuff if any corals should be affected first. What works for some may not work for others. Whether it being healthy or not would be a chance an individual takes a chance of. The only reason we even use Bayer is because it may stronger than coral rx and other dips and is cheaper. I'd recommend for anyone in the hobby who isn't too informed about coral dips and doesn't have chances to take to just use aquarium brand dips because theirs studies on them and this Bayer is just a guy who tried something and it worked for him. The guy obviously did his research and that's what the hobby is about. Learning. I applaud him for taking the time to write this post because he cares enough to inform us about the possibility of failure and what's inside Bayer that helps gets rid of pests on coral. IBut the thing with pets, don't think Bayer ever thought it be used for an animal in the ocean lol. I don't think Smirnoff ever thought people would use it to get rid of nitrates. Same with crazy glue. I wouldn't use Bayer just because it hasn't been labeled as an aquarium product and I'm not going to jeopardize my corals due to little knowledge and study on it in the aquarium setting.

 

[Elysium]

I'll provide a perspective from the regulatory/remediation side of things. As an FYI, I work as a hydrogeologist for an environmental consulting firm.

Imidacloprid is anew formulation of the older (now banned) organochlorine (cyclodiene) insecticides (e.g. chlordane, DDT). Organochlorine pesticides were hydrophobic (did not dissolve or mix with water). As such once applied they had a tendency to adsorb to soils and either migrate downward into groundwater or more specifically as aerial dispersion/runoff into water bodies. They eventually reach the oceans, sink, and then migrate up the food chain (amphipods/zooplankton, small fish, big fish, birds, etc.). Pretty much the same issues as mercury and PCBs. They have a long residence time in the environment and that is why even though they were "banned" commercially in 1988, there are still issues today as the concentrations of materials in the environment are still a contributing source.

Imidacloprid and other synthetic pyrethroid pesticides have low soil adsorbtion qualities, readily dissolve in water, nonvolatile and is readily broken down via aqueous photolysis resulting in a short residence time (tens of days) in the environment (especially in surface waters). So short residence time, dilute-able. Better yet it is absorbed by GAC!

Guidance from California (most highly regulated and chemical-ban happy state): http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/pubs/fatememo/Imidclprdfate2.pdf

Now with that in mind, don't go dumping it down the drains. Most municipal wastewater treatment plants still can't fully treat pesticides. Just because the risks are overstated due to liability lawsuits, it is still better to be eco-friendly .

Best bets: Use it as it was meant to and treat your lawn or weeds with it (dilute it a bit first - like add to a gallon of water). Or find a secure spot and a sealable container (outside) and let the water evaporate, bake it in the sun while doing so, etc. Keep adding your dip over time letting it dry out, reseal, and then eventually dispose of your dry container as household hazardous waste just to be safe. Usually your municipality will have free drop-offs

 

[GatorGuys]

By definition, pesticides have to be toxic to something - or else they would not work!

The argument to not dip corals in Bayer simply because it is a pesticide is somewhat short-sighted... we need something to help us remove / prevent an outbreak of pests that can quickly decimate the corals in our small, closed environments. If we do not dip the corals, the only other alternative would be to treat the entire tank... which we all know is much more difficult and usually results in more collateral damage (killing helpful inverts, etc).

I would rather dip a few small pieces of coral - in a small amount of pesticide - in a controlled manner - to kill the pests I do not want in my small bubble of an ecosystem than for my ecosystem to be completely over-run by pests! By the time I dip the small corals in the pesticide, wash it off, and place it in my much larger tank, the small amount of residual chemicals that may still be on the coral is now being diluted to such small PPM that it will not harm the rest of the critters in my tank. I know this is a successful way to apply the pesticide, because if it didn't dilute the chemical below toxic levels we would have many more tank crashes!

I get that you may think a tank needs to be 'pristine' and the small amount of chemical may irritate the other critters (including the corals) but to me, that is a small price to pay to avoid the various pests that can destroy the ecosystem from getting in the tank. There are many other reasons the corals do not propagate inside our small bubbles of an ecosystem... in the end, the corals will never propagate if they get chewed up by pests - all because you want to avoid a very small amount of chemical residue.

 

[Kungpaoshizi]

Your dissent from the currently observed and accepted conclusions regarding the results from the use of Bayer

Your basis for trying to slip out of the responsibility of proving it's not harmful to corals, let alone is provoking red bugs to perhaps become resistant, already has published research in those 2 areas that semi-relate.

Again you're the one challenging the original data from the manufacturer. It's also not accepted fully in the community where I'm at, so you're being hopeful. As a side note, of the stores I always had issues with corals? Was the one that used bayer. I actually asked the other store yesterday and they responded to using Coral RX. Coincidence? Idk, but it's more data than saying "bayer's ok! har har!!"

Honestly, I think our conversation is done. You've yet to provide any legitimate data whatsoever.

Thanks for chiming in though on your opinion.

 

[Kungpaoshizi]

I'll provide a perspective from the regulatory/remediation side of things. As an FYI, I work as a hydrogeologist for an environmental consulting firm.

Imidacloprid is anew formulation of the older (now banned) organochlorine (cyclodiene) insecticides (e.g. chlordane, DDT). Organochlorine pesticides were hydrophobic (did not dissolve or mix with water). As such once applied they had a tendency to adsorb to soils and either migrate downward into groundwater or more specifically as aerial dispersion/runoff into water bodies. They eventually reach the oceans, sink, and then migrate up the food chain (amphipods/zooplankton, small fish, big fish, birds, etc.). Pretty much the same issues as mercury and PCBs. They have a long residence time in the environment and that is why even though they were "banned" commercially in 1988, there are still issues today as the concentrations of materials in the environment are still a contributing source.

Imidacloprid and other synthetic pyrethroid pesticides have low soil adsorbtion qualities, readily dissolve in water, nonvolatile and is readily broken down via aqueous photolysis resulting in a short residence time (tens of days) in the environment (especially in surface waters). So short residence time, dilute-able. Better yet it is absorbed by GAC!

Guidance from California (most highly regulated and chemical-ban happy state): http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/pubs/fatememo/Imidclprdfate2.pdf

Now with that in mind, don't go dumping it down the drains. Most municipal wastewater treatment plants still can't fully treat pesticides. Just because the risks are overstated due to liability lawsuits, it is still better to be eco-friendly .

Best bets: Use it as it was meant to and treat your lawn or weeds with it (dilute it a bit first - like add to a gallon of water). Or find a secure spot and a sealable container (outside) and let the water evaporate, bake it in the sun while doing so, etc. Keep adding your dip over time letting it dry out, reseal, and then eventually dispose of your dry container as household hazardous waste just to be safe. Usually your municipality will have free drop-offs

When I stumbled across the fact a wastewater treatment plant has issues removing it, all I can think is, "Wow, did they try rinsing 5 times more? Maybe they should listen to these pro's in the hobby who have it all figured out.".

 

[Kungpaoshizi]

By definition, pesticides have to be toxic to something - or else they would not work!

The argument to not dip corals in Bayer simply because it is a pesticide is somewhat short-sighted... we need something to help us remove / prevent an outbreak of pests that can quickly decimate the corals in our small, closed environments. If we do not dip the corals, the only other alternative would be to treat the entire tank... which we all know is much more difficult and usually results in more collateral damage (killing helpful inverts, etc).

I would rather dip a few small pieces of coral - in a small amount of pesticide - in a controlled manner - to kill the pests I do not want in my small bubble of an ecosystem than for my ecosystem to be completely over-run by pests! By the time I dip the small corals in the pesticide, wash it off, and place it in my much larger tank, the small amount of residual chemicals that may still be on the coral is now being diluted to such small PPM that it will not harm the rest of the critters in my tank. I know this is a successful way to apply the pesticide, because if it didn't dilute the chemical below toxic levels we would have many more tank crashes!

I get that you may think a tank needs to be 'pristine' and the small amount of chemical may irritate the other critters (including the corals) but to me, that is a small price to pay to avoid the various pests that can destroy the ecosystem from getting in the tank. There are many other reasons the corals do not propagate inside our small bubbles of an ecosystem... in the end, the corals will never propagate if they get chewed up by pests - all because you want to avoid a very small amount of chemical residue.

There's too many unknowns and nobody is discussing them.
Even from the perspective of the forerunner MD, if I were new to the hobby, I would think it's perfectly safe. But that's not the case. Even your own example of PPM is incorrect as they went into toxicity levels that were PPB or PPT. There's even a few tangents of scientists saying 'we don't have the right detection tools to detect the ultra-low residuals.'

It's a lot of speculation and people aren't being adult enough to investigate those things.

 

[Kungpaoshizi]

I'll post the data of what I can find on the second compound in a few days. But I think I'm not going to respond anymore to social activity.

Those who are challenging the very premise of what the manufacturer says, has never provided anything at all in the ways of short or long-term problems.

Perhaps I sound like a kook, but unless you would pour it on your skin or your kids, why the heck would you subject corals to such a harsh thing?!

That's also aside from the fact arthropods have been identified to have a gene to resist b-cyfluthrin. So eventually, you guys are going to create it. I just wanted to say in advance, thanks. You're bad.

As to those who don't want to look up data about how these compounds DON'T affect corals and/or marine water systems, the only way you're going to be taken seriously by people who have independent thought is by 'calming their nerves'! (ha, get it? lawl)

But in recognition of those who claim 'tons of people have done it and we've seen no significant side affects'. You already completely ignored my experience about it, so who else did you ignore because you're in denial?

Here's my excerpts from the 1800's, when if people were interviewed with today's knowledge, people would have looked like big children.

"We're from the 'Hooch is completely safe' committee. Yup, been drinking for 17 days straight and I haven't seen any side effects. In fact, it allows me to tolerate more pain! This stuff is a God send."

"Heroin is better than any other pain meds, I swear! Absolutely no side effects! Makes ya sleepy for a bit, but that's it just working it's magic!"

As I look at these, especially the 'external use only' on the mercury one. I think to myself, boy.. You're right, how the heck could you be wrong about such an effective toxic pesticide. It's made for insects, we're talking about crustaceans and corals, not invertebrates and arthropods.
There's absolutely no chance Bayer is harmful or persistant in ways we can't see.
My eye is perfect for detecting everything that could possible be going wrong with a coral or the animals I put in my tank. I don't even see why scientists have developed microscopes or any other devices like that. Idiots.. they just need to get on some forums and ask around to find all of their answers.

 

[Daniel@R2R]

Your basis for trying to slip out of the responsibility of proving it's not harmful to corals, let alone is provoking red bugs to perhaps become resistant, already has published research in those 2 areas that semi-relate.

Could you please show a study that shows red bugs are building resistance to Bayer? From everything I've seen so far, you're drawing connections to things that are not applicable to Bayer dipping of corals. If you're going to talk about scientific method and call for concrete research, then you can't manipulate data to try and form an argument for your own ends. That's more of the same type of hypocrisy I've pointed out already (that you generally have ignored).

Again you're the one challenging the original data from the manufacturer.

What original data are you referring to? You seem to have ignored every answer I gave to that accusation above. There's nothing I've contradicted the manufacturer on, and if you'd like to show otherwise, then please do so without ignoring my answers above.

It's also not accepted fully in the community where I'm at, so you're being hopeful.

You're twisting my words (again). I never said it was accepted fully by the community. There are people who don't use skimmers, sand, or any number of generally accepted products for a variety of reasons. That doesn't change the FACT that the overwhelming consensus by those who have used the product that it is effective and has had no observable negative effect on their tank. Not sure what you think I'm being "hopeful" about. Again, I'm just stating a fact.

As a side note, of the stores I always had issues with corals? Was the one that used bayer. I actually asked the other store yesterday and they responded to using Coral RX. Coincidence? Idk, but it's more data than saying "bayer's ok! har har!!"

I answered this already. There are literally hundreds of things that could be different between these two stores that will explain a difference in coral health, but you've determined that Bayer is the likely single determining factor. I thought you were trying to be scientific?

Honestly, I think our conversation is done. You've yet to provide any legitimate data whatsoever.

Thanks for chiming in though on your opinion.

Not sure what you mean here either. I've cited (repeatedly) the literally thousands of successful reefers who are using Bayer with no observable negative effects. As a small sample of this, I can cite the guys who have chimed in here and on Facebook who have been using Bayer for years (some for 10+ years) as their coral dip of choice with no issues. I have contrasted these successes with the VERY few (you're actually only 1 of 3 that I've seen) who reported negative observations, and in each case user error was a factor that possibly contributed to the issue (you admitted that much). That IS legitimate data.

Aside from that, I have continually pointed out the flaws in the data you have misread or misapplied to try and support a point that has not been and cannot be supported by any research that has been done so far. To the counter point, you have continually ignored or twisted my words to create arguments that I have not made (known as the straw man fallacy). I'm not sure if the last issue is intentional or if perhaps you're just not paying attention, but if you're going to debate someone, the first thing you must do is to pay attention to what they are saying so that you do not misrepresent their point.

 

[hybridazn]

 

[WilRams]

Move along now....nothing to see here.

 

[Daniel@R2R]

I'll post the data of what I can find on the second compound in a few days. But I think I'm not going to respond anymore to social activity.

Those who are challenging the very premise of what the manufacturer says, has never provided anything at all in the ways of short or long-term problems.

No one is challenging anything the manufacturer has said. I answered this argument above and you ignored my answers. There has been nothing provided by the manufacturer that supports this statement or your overall claim.

Perhaps I sound like a kook, but unless you would pour it on your skin or your kids, why the heck would you subject corals to such a harsh thing?!

Well...there are several things I could say here, but I'll just say that this is again a case of comparing apples to oranges. Why you ask? Well, because I wouldn't keep my kids in a glass box filled with saltwater either. You're comparing two TOTALLY different types of life forms. Their care requirements are TOTALLY different. Their susceptibility to different types of toxins is TOTALLY different.

That's also aside from the fact arthropods have been identified to have a gene to resist b-cyfluthrin. So eventually, you guys are going to create it. I just wanted to say in advance, thanks. You're bad.

Data? I think you're confusing bed bugs with red bugs again (I know they rhyme, but not the same thing). How do I know? Because red bugs die in Bayer dip. It's hard to develop a resistance when you're dead.

As to those who don't want to look up data about how these compounds DON'T affect corals and/or marine water systems, the only way you're going to be taken seriously by people who have independent thought is by 'calming their nerves'! (ha, get it? lawl)

No one is ignoring this data. It simply doesn't exist. Also, to your point, the only way your hypothesis can ever be taken seriously by those of us who have used and seen positive benefits of Bayer dipping (without seeing any negative effects) is if you show legit data (not misapplied and misrepresented information that is manipulated to make a point). Otherwise, you come off as a troll (and I don't mean that as an insult...it's just the way it looks).

But in recognition of those who claim 'tons of people have done it and we've seen no significant side affects'. You already completely ignored my experience about it, so who else did you ignore because you're in denial?

We're not ignoring your experience. We're simply weighing it against the thousands of other experiences that counter it. I'll ask again because I've asked multiple times and you haven't answered. Why should we accept your experience as being equally valid to the literally thousands of others whose experience has been the exact opposite? This is a valid question that deserves an answer.

Here's my excerpts from the 1800's, when if people were interviewed with today's knowledge, people would have looked like big children.

"We're from the 'Hooch is completely safe' committee. Yup, been drinking for 17 days straight and I haven't seen any side effects. In fact, it allows me to tolerate more pain! This stuff is a God send."

"Heroin is better than any other pain meds, I swear! Absolutely no side effects! Makes ya sleepy for a bit, but that's it just working it's magic!"

As I look at these, especially the 'external use only' on the mercury one. I think to myself, boy.. You're right, how the heck could you be wrong about such an effective toxic pesticide. It's made for insects, we're talking about crustaceans and corals, not invertebrates and arthropods.

You're attempting to build a straw man again. For each of these examples, I can provide examples of compounds we've been using for millennia that are continued in use today. Would you say we should stop using all other medications or tank chemicals that we don't know everything about? How about something like NoPox?

There's absolutely no chance Bayer is harmful or persistant in ways we can't see.
My eye is perfect for detecting everything that could possible be going wrong with a coral or the animals I put in my tank. I don't even see why scientists have developed microscopes or any other devices like that. Idiots.. they just need to get on some forums and ask around to find all of their answers.

This is a complete misrepresentation of our position, and your attempt at ad hominem is duly noted. No one has said this. We've agreed that if (pertinent) research were done that showed a reasonable concern, then we'd take that into consideration. No pertinent research has been done, and you have not satisfactorily made your point. There's been nothing presented that shows a cause for the type of alarm you're sounding.

 

[brandon429]

I do side with kungpao on one thing, it is absolutely fun to take on res publica all alone in posts there is no better claims filter. Doesn't matter if I agree with his cause effect, to set up a ufc reef thread and take on fifty counterclaims at once is funny, fun and good for the typing thumbs. I make the same harsh claims in API misread threads

 

[GatorGuys]

I get that you had a bad experience with Bayer - and no one is really ignoring your experience.

One thing I will ask is this: If you do not want to use Bayer to rid your tank of pests - what will you use? I guarantee you that ANY effective pesticide will have potential side-effects (whether or not it is specifically made for aquarium use). I suspect that you could find people who have had a bad experience with every product made to rid aquariums of pests - regardless of how much research, money, and experience went into the making of the product.

Again, by definition any product used to kill an unwanted critter (pesticide) can have the potential to kill beneficial critters. It is called collateral damage. Every effective product has this problem - even 'natural' remedies (as the natural remedies are still using chemical warfare). The only difference is how quickly the 'natural' remedies break-down and lose their toxicity... but then you may have to re-apply the chemical multiple times in order to completely rid yourself of the undesired critters. In fact, I see more potential for a 'natural' remedy to create a pesticide-resistant bug because people are not going to re-apply the required dosing in order to completely kill all of the undesired critters.

 

[maroun.c]

One interesting dipping regimen I've seen was a double dip: Coral RX followed by Bayer which covers a larger spectrum and deals with potential resistance building. Quarantining and RE diping after one week maximizes the effect before moving corals to aquarium.

 

[Kungpaoshizi]

I'm not sure which is funnier..

The fact people claim nothing happens to the coral, or the redirecting of 'burden of proof' which happens a lot(the manufacturer said it first, period), or the fact some are convinced nothing can happen based on the simple observation it doesn't kill the coral within minutes.

But then it's hilarious that people say using it is 'proven and established' just by some daring people actually using it and again, corals don't die instantly.
I guarantee though if the mob mentality wasn't so 'with hunt' like, more people would share their experience. I'm sure many don't because they don't want to be made fun of, told it was user error, or even worse, have to deal with such continual arguing based off of opinion vs research. The compounds have been proven to cause acute and chronic affects. For some reason just because many have dipped using it and the coral didn't die (not all) then people declare from the mountain tops that it's ok. Completely ignoring the possibility of chronic problems or the resistance factor that has already been displayed in nature.

Let me know when you guys actually have some data. By "data" I even mean successes vs fails, even THAT is better than hearing people rant and rave about how awesome they think it is. But as a personal note, don't have such condescending attitudes towards other people when they are trying to better the hobby to take care of the corals.

Anyone that can read can see the compounds are not intended for corals, yet you pretend it's all ok because you used it, and apparently nothing has died.

But please do ignore my request for data, by all means. It shows the level of academic quality being brought to the table to further study it's effects on our corals, creatures, and systems.

Oh, and nopox does work quite well. Even in the thread that displayed such hostility as this one, the number of people supporting nopox outweighed the number against it.(if we're claiming anecdotal evidence on a forum is completely legitimate scientific data with no extensions for further research because it's undeniably correct)
To still make fun of me about it, is called denial. (kinda sad it's a staff member in addition to the forerunner here)

 

[Kungpaoshizi]

Want another good laugh at me?
Read this
https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/strontium.254367/

 

[happyhourhero]

I drip pickling lime into my tank that is made for turning cucumbers into pickles. I cannot find anywhere that says Mrs Wages intended for her product to be used in an aquarium. There are lots of people who do this and have great results (me included). There is a possibility of using it incorrectly and causing loss of life to the corals. Do you feel that this is an unacceptable practice?

I just cannot figure out why you are so vehemently against Bayer. Most people that have a bad experience with a product simply quit using it and move on. The years of successful use of Bayer are already documented by hobbyists. Why not just let it go and enjoy the hobby?

 

[Kungpaoshizi]

I'm vehemently against things that have not been properly vetted. And yes, some will say it has, but if that's what the debate is about, please link info that concerns long-term use and precise observation. (I would guess there is none, which is exactly why we should look into it before things go wrong)

I do enjoy the hobby, it doesn't mean I can't try and better it by analyzing foreign products being introduced. To not do so would put people in the category of Al Bundy.