I see their rationale after that expanded description, although it lacks info on what the system was like before the mud was added. It is a substantial problem with reef supply companies promoting products: what exactly are they comparing to that is claimed to be worse before the product was used.
This is very fair. To clarify, the system was actually doing just fine. The only issue was those pesky solomon deepwater acros. Other solomon acros were stagnant, but didn't die. I do plan on doing a full write up with our results (we have data for ICP-MS, ICP "organo" MS, and aquabiomics before and after the mud experiment started).
Were they previously dosing any amino acids?
Yes, we were using KZ's aminos. During our experiment, we deliberately continued using this product, and in the same dose + frequency (once weekly, mixed in our food, which is CRT's concoction). We also did not change any water during this period, and were very deliberate about maintaining all the inputs consistently. It's a fishless system, which does help remove some sources of noise (e.g. fish food, fish waste), but it's far from flawless. We do have consistent N / P, by the way, as we constantly dose ammonium chloride (I used this before I read your bicarbonate article, btw... I recommend others use ammonium bicarbonate instead of ammonium chloride) as well as sodium phosphate to maintain a consistent level.
It should be noted that many of these aminos we added do in fact exist in KZ's aminos (including taurine, and others), but the spikes in concentration we saw far exceeded our control data (again, 6000% for taurine specifically). As such, we determined them to be massive increases on top of the established KZ amino "baseline," rather than just "things added by the KZ supplement."
Those things matter, IMO, but companies like to gloss over details to make products look useful in more scenarios than may actually be the case.
100%. We are not claiming in any way that we understand these results, nor that we have bottled some "magic" that fixes every problem for everyone. In fact, many of these aminos can be quite problematic if just dosed with reckless abandon -- for example, arginine, which has been shown to make dinoflagellate toxins even more potent in a system where dinos are already thriving.
t also demonstrates to me the issue that folks sometimes get into: they made many things change at once (at least the 6 chemicals they observed rise, likely plus others they did not monitor, possible including inorganics (think miracle mud)) and don't really know which (if any) of those are responsible for the observed changes.
I actually would have been happier with a simple statement that we added just those 6 things and observed a benefit, even if they did not want to test each individually for a benefit.
I think you've probably seen my other reply covering that statement by now, but yes, we absolutely agree. The mud was a shotgun approach. We did not isolate those aminos individually during that initial phase, though we absolutely plan on doing those isolated experiments later on to see exactly which ones are in fact driving the observed successes with these specific corals.
Even the namesake taurine is not demonstrated to be of value, at least according to how they developed the product.
We did lean heavily on the existing research regarding taurine, which I linked in my previous reply. Based on the literature (specifically regarding Host Release Factors), I do firmly believe it has a demonstrated beneficial role for coral health and nutrition. Plus, if you'll allow me... it makes for a pretty fun name for a product ;).
Happy to answer any other questions you have! It's not a perfect experiment by far, but it's the best we could reasonably do in a home setting. If you have any suggestions for follow ups, I would also love to hear your thoughts!