Bayer saved my tank from an AEFW infestation and total shut down of my tank.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Thx, I appreciate the info.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.
100% this!@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.@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.
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.
Same here.Following.
Although I had never a bad effect about Bayer and that after using it for 6 years.