Bolus dosing

[Mo.]

No, just making sure I understand. :)

Nice one Randy!

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

This is very strange.

What’s the point of this whole forum if not about reef keeping?

Theres a lot of deflection going on here. I’m a bit disappointed by it I have to say..

I thought I was going to see
Some nice tanks in response.

Cheers

Mo

Yes, of course keeping nice tanks is one important goal.

Enjoying the hobby is another.

Helping reefers understand reef chemistry is a big goal of this sub forum.

Typically these are not in conflict, but many correct actions may be taken for the wrong reasons. Sometimes that is important, especially if the ideas might be misleading and not useful in some slightly different scenario than the original.

 

[Sisterlimonpot]

I thought I was going to see
Some nice tanks in response.

What does photos of tanks prove? Except to lend some credibility to one's ability to grow corals.

If you want a photo, here's my tank at start up:

And 6 years later:

I won't preach that kalkwasser was the main reason for success, nor can I use this to disprove bolus. But I can say that this was achieved without the help of dumping chemicals in all at once.

I could also expand and use selective facts to market a reactor that targets pH to guarantee success while claiming other methods will lead to old tank syndrome. But we know that without proof, that's all BS.

 

[areefer01]

What does photos of tanks prove? Except to lend some credibility to one's ability to grow corals.

If you want a photo, here's my tank at start up:

And 6 years later:

I won't preach that kalkwasser was the main reason for success, nor can I use this to disprove bolus. But I can say that this was achieved without the help of dumping chemicals in all at once.

I could also expand and use selective facts to market a reactor that targets pH to guarantee success while claiming other methods will lead to old tank syndrome. But we know that without proof, that's all BS.

And even then the saying haters going to hate will come into play - criticism is unlikely to change :(

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Nice one Randy!

Really, I ment nothing more than clarification and wondering if I should comment further (if it wasn’t sarcasm I might have as an individual, not a moderator )

 

[BeanAnimal]

lol.

Even if it were bad science leading to nice corals is still Worth showing off.

The deflection is in the not showing off.

We have for many many years said to judge a commentator the bottom line is look at their tank and not what they say. It seems to have changed on this thread.

after all, there are very few ways to judge credentials. We can all talk a good game.

I don’t see the harm in asking to see tanks, but you’ve all gotten offended.

Just saying…. Lol

I am not offended.

This isn’t about judging success. It’s about a vendor promoting questionable claims to an audience that often lacks the tools to critically evaluate their validity, then asserting those claims are true simply because the results appear to align with their narrative.

Worse yet, they encourage that same audience to repeat those claims, building a business and reputation on the illusion of being at the forefront of reef science.

You just want to talk about the pretty results and give them a pass on the nonsense, because well, pretty tanks...

 

[Garf]

It's really not very nice that everyone who switches over to the Fauna calculator, assumes the "Broken Buffer" rubbish is real. Especially when it's the Fauna calculator that's broken (more specifically, Faunas understanding of the potency of it's own product) and the reefers are playing catch up because they aren't adding as much as they think. There should be a law against it, lol.

 

[areefer01]

It's really not very nice that everyone who switches over to the Fauna calculator, assumes the "Broken Buffer" rubbish is real. Especially when it's the Fauna calculator that's broken and the reefers are playing catch up because they aren't adding as much as they think. There should be a law against it, lol.

This is one thing that confuses me, not that is a difficult thing to do. But honestly if the calculator is wrong why not fix it? Seems like that is independent of a hobbyist view of the method.

Seems like a strange cross to die on in my opinion.

 

[Garf]

why not fix it?

And admit selling half potency alk for 20 years, or however long it's been? There's definitely gotta be a law against that. I think he's in a hole.

 

[BeanAnimal]

This is one thing that confuses me, not that is a difficult thing to do. But honestly if the calculator is wrong why not fix it? Seems like that is independent of a hobbyist view of the method.

Seems like a strange cross to die on in my opinion.

Aside from the obvious, it is the foundation of a house… a whole neighborhood of houses of cards. It breaks the whole narrative.

 

[Pod_01]

It's really not very nice that everyone who switches over to the Fauna calculator, assumes the "Broken Buffer" rubbish is real. Especially when it's the Fauna calculator that's broken (more specifically, Faunas understanding of the potency of it's own product) and the reefers are playing catch up because they aren't adding as much as they think. There should be a law against it, lol.

Well, I am waiting for a refund or the missing dKh from FM. Hopefully Claude can find it somewhere. I don’t need much all I grow is tumbleweeds…

It is unfortunate that FM can get away with this type of shenanigans… still.

 

[rishma]

This is one thing that confuses me, not that is a difficult thing to do. But honestly if the calculator is wrong why not fix it? Seems like that is independent of a hobbyist view of the method.

Seems like a strange cross to die on in my opinion.

Is there a purpose of the incorrect alkalinity calculator? I cannot figure it out. Maybe I missed the angle. Why not make it accurate? That seems like much less hassle than creative arguments.

:)

 

[Mo.]

What does photos of tanks prove? Except to lend some credibility to one's ability to grow corals.

If you want a photo, here's my tank at start up:

And 6 years later:

I won't preach that kalkwasser was the main reason for success, nor can I use this to disprove bolus. But I can say that this was achieved without the help of dumping chemicals in all at once.

I could also expand and use selective facts to market a reactor that targets pH to guarantee success while claiming other methods will lead to old tank syndrome. But we know that without proof, that's all BS.

Well at least it gives confidence that whatever method you use, you are able to grow corals.

That doesn’t apply to everyone. However, everyone seems to have an opinion.

I’m sure there some Bolus users out there that will claim it can produce similar results, or maybe not. Time will tell.

Thanks for posting!

 

[Mo.]

I am not offended.

This isn’t about judging success. It’s about a vendor promoting questionable claims to an audience that often lacks the tools to critically evaluate their validity, then asserting those claims are true simply because the results appear to align with their narrative.

Worse yet, they encourage that same audience to repeat those claims, building a business and reputation on the illusion of being at the forefront of reef science.

You just want to talk about the pretty results and give them a pass on the nonsense, because well, pretty tanks...

A lot of the science will not interest the average hobbyist. What will is a nice tank.

There are more ways than one to grow coral. If Bolus doesn’t work, by all
Means call it out. But if it can grow coral then…..

 

[Mo.]

It's really not very nice that everyone who switches over to the Fauna calculator, assumes the "Broken Buffer" rubbish is real. Especially when it's the Fauna calculator that's broken (more specifically, Faunas understanding of the potency of it's own product) and the reefers are playing catch up because they aren't adding as much as they think. There should be a law against it, lol.

Fauna users have been using their products for years. Many don’t even use the calculators.

The dilutions they give on the label, I think are less than other alk products.
I’m sure there’s a reason for it, but the dilution is on their label, unless I’m mistaken? Maybe it affects their trace solution dilutions? Or maybe some other reason?


Mo

 

[Mo.]

And admit selling half potency alk for 20 years, or however long it's been? There's definitely gotta be a law against that. I think he's in a hole.

If it’s a half potency powder, what is it mixed with?

 

[audioTom]

The only german chemistry expert in reefing is Armin Glaser.
He wrote the Book "Ratgeber Meerwasserchemie: Theorie und Praxis für Aquarianer" (translation: Guide to seawater chemistry: theory and practice for aquarists ) which was published in 2008.
He had to step back for a while due to illness.
I don't think he would go anywhere near to Claudes "fantasie-science", in any case he would back up Randys statements.....
So, as a german i am much more curious now who will back up claudes fantasies.

 

[carbl]

It is a bit boring to read the same over and over again. I share the critics regarding FM and Claude and Doug.
But I think there is enough information in this thread for everyone to form their own opinion.

Since there is a lack of measurement data, it might be helpful if bolus users write about their experiences.
In a german forum there are three actual reviews and that is quite interesting, i think.
The first one had problems after using Bolus. Some LPS died, some SPS degenerated partly and growth and colours decreased. KH/Ca consumption too.
He said, that he has four species of porites corals in this tank and that they constantly shed their skin. He also claims that they are poisonous and if he has too much contact with these corals, he gets flu-like symptoms. He suspects that the damage was not caused directly by Bolus, but indirectly by the poisoning from the Porites corals. He still has T5 lights, so he was unable to increase the light output. In earlier times Porites used to be considered rather difficult to keep, as some cannot tolerate large fluctuations in KH.
When he switched back to continuous dosing, the SPS and other corals recovered and the colors came back.
The only positive thing for him was the pH stabilization at 8.2, which was lower and more fluctuating without bolus.

A second person wrote that he had not noticed any change at all. Neither in the consumption (currently 280ml KH from Balling light) nor in the corals themselves. However, he did not increase the light output.

A third started with Bolus on 30.12. and is positively surprised. The light output was increased as specified at the start of the lighting phase. He started with a consumption of 200ml KH and is now at 425ml after a about 10 days. The corals look slightly better, a red monti is obviously growing very well and the euphyllia are doing better. He has also noticed a stabilization or increase in the pH value. He writes that he never got above 8, now the pH value is 8.06.

Even if these experience reports are incomplete, it would be nice if more people would report on their experiences. Good or bad, it's not about right or wrong. And perhaps we can make it so that not everyone with positive experiences is immediately regarded as a disciple of FM ;-)

Perhaps this will give us an idea of when and how bolus "works" or not.
Perhaps the coral species play a role, or perhaps the amount of KH that is dosed. Adding 200ml per bolus/day or 2000ml can make a difference. Likewise the light: if someone has a lot of light over the tank and then increases it by another 20% by bolus, this could stress the corals and stagnate growth. Conversely, if a tank is poorly or moderately lit and you then increase the light output, this can have a very positive effect. And and and...

 

[twentyleagues]

It is a bit boring to read the same over and over again. I share the critics regarding FM and Claude and Doug.
But I think there is enough information in this thread for everyone to form their own opinion.

Since there is a lack of measurement data, it might be helpful if bolus users write about their experiences.
In a german forum there are three actual reviews and that is quite interesting, i think.
The first one had problems after using Bolus. Some LPS died, some SPS degenerated partly and growth and colours decreased. KH/Ca consumption too.
He said, that he has four species of porites corals in this tank and that they constantly shed their skin. He also claims that they are poisonous and if he has too much contact with these corals, he gets flu-like symptoms. He suspects that the damage was not caused directly by Bolus, but indirectly by the poisoning from the Porites corals. He still has T5 lights, so he was unable to increase the light output. In earlier times Porites used to be considered rather difficult to keep, as some cannot tolerate large fluctuations in KH.
When he switched back to continuous dosing, the SPS and other corals recovered and the colors came back.
The only positive thing for him was the pH stabilization at 8.2, which was lower and more fluctuating without bolus.

A second person wrote that he had not noticed any change at all. Neither in the consumption (currently 280ml KH from Balling light) nor in the corals themselves. However, he did not increase the light output.

A third started with Bolus on 30.12. and is positively surprised. The light output was increased as specified at the start of the lighting phase. He started with a consumption of 200ml KH and is now at 425ml after a about 10 days. The corals look slightly better, a red monti is obviously growing very well and the euphyllia are doing better. He has also noticed a stabilization or increase in the pH value. He writes that he never got above 8, now the pH value is 8.06.

Even if these experience reports are incomplete, it would be nice if more people would report on their experiences. Good or bad, it's not about right or wrong. And perhaps we can make it so that not everyone with positive experiences is immediately regarded as a disciple of FM ;-)

Perhaps this will give us an idea of when and how bolus "works" or not.
Perhaps the coral species play a role, or perhaps the amount of KH that is dosed. Adding 200ml per bolus/day or 2000ml can make a difference. Likewise the light: if someone has a lot of light over the tank and then increases it by another 20% by bolus, this could stress the corals and stagnate growth. Conversely, if a tank is poorly or moderately lit and you then increase the light output, this can have a very positive effect. And and and...

No one is doubting that it works, it does work why wouldnt it?
The people in the non bolus corner are more concerned with the comments that it is better. Why what where when and how can not be answered other then show me your tank. The Fanitscience from the company is off putting and their continued dodging of questions or real honest conversation Is out right a slap in the face. Again you get the DB response show us your tank dude! attitude. It doesnt matter what or if a chemist has a tank if they are telling you your whole idea is fantasy thats not how chemistry works. But they stick to their guns with you dont have a tank, show us your tank, Chemistry is different in the aquarium than in the real world what you know is not applicable in aquariums. Get a tank and figure it out. Come on really? This is the push back and why. Its not that it works or not of coarse it work as it has before someone made it popular.
Its better isnt cutting it either. Why is it better what has improved and how can you tell it got better? This might be where the show us your tank comes in to play? before and after shots? Time lapse?

 

[OscarHaglund]

The only positive thing for him was the pH stabilization at 8.2, which was lower and more fluctuating without bolus.

The reports about improved ph despite not increasing lighting are interesting right?