Pressure on False Claim Products

[elysics]

Redfield neutral makes no 'sense'. I mean I see what they are trying to claim - but - Seems like a highly doubtful claim - and considering all of the questions about Redfield - I would say its not a great reason to feed a food. Redfield is a ratio. So - plug in any numbers you want for (C:N - P). Aquarists do not measure these elements on their own - so right there is a significant problem.

For example let's say the supposed 'good ratio' is "106:16:1". So if the nitrate is 160 and the PO4 is 10 - that fits the ratio - but it's not going to fit into a successful reef tank IMHO.

Eh for a food rather than for water parameters it makes perfect sense. It's wonky wording for " nutritionally balanced", as opposed to a food that would have excess phosphate or nitrate or whatever else that would be left over aver the tank metabolizes the rest.

Nitrate 160 PO4 10 isn't great. But that's an easy fix, feed less, feed less, add more corals and everything goes down. If it were nitrate 1 PO4 10 on the other hand, that's an issue, you've got an unbalanced food that gives you the right amount of nitrogen but pollutes your tank with excess phosphorus that can't be taken up, and you can't just feed less or increase the lifestock, you'd need to get a different food that's lower on phosphorus relative to its nitrogen content.

 

[Hans-Werner]

Maybe we can get Tropic Marin to clean up their confusing advertising on products like All For Reef. It has been confusing folks since AFR came out.

The problem is that in many settings, such as the bottles themselves and at resellers such as BRS, they confusingly (and incorrectly) give alk concentrations as dKH per volume. But dKH is already per unit volume, so correcting it for volumes leads to incorrect and meaningless statements.

If it has been confusing folks since AFR came out I am very sorry but it skipped my attention. Are there questions related to the "amount" of alkalinity AFR adds in this forum?

I can't recall getting an e-mail asking how much alkalinity AFR doses based on the claims we make in the instructions.

The reason behind this "false" claim is, that I thought noone would understand, that the one liter bottle has 6000 dKH alkalinity and the half liter bottle also has 6000 dKH alkalinity. Should we have taken as prerequisite that everyone knows dKH is a concentration and not a quantity they can dose?

I know it is not your job, but maybe you can suggest how we can convert this concentration to a quantity that can be dosed given in units almost everybody understands?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

If it has been confusing folks since AFR came out I am very sorry but it skipped my attention. Are there questions related to the "amount" of alkalinity AFR adds in this forum?

I can't recall getting an e-mail asking how much alkalinity AFR doses based on the claims we make in the instructions.

The reason behind this "false" claim is, that I thought noone would understand, that the one liter bottle has 6000 dKH alkalinity and the half liter bottle also has 6000 dKH alkalinity. Should we have taken as prerequisite that everyone knows dKH is a concentration and not a quantity they can dose?

I know it is not your job, but maybe you can suggest how we can convert this concentration to a quantity that can be dosed given in units almost everybody understands?

I do not think we have a question in this thread about alk in AFR, but the wording should be changed. Folks in other parts of the forum are apparently confused.

What’s the alkalinity in the ocean? No answer except about 6.5 dKH is correct and it does not confuse people any more than saying calcium is 420 ppm.

I think stating it is 6,000 dKH is the best way to go. That is what I use to describe my diy products.

If you were concerned about misunderstandings you could give the alkalinity as 2,140 meq/L = 6,000 dKH. That helps makes it clear that it is a per volume measurement.

 

[Hans-Werner]

Sorry, I posted in the wrong thread.

 

[Hans-Werner]

NP-Bacto-Balance may also be used above 0.1 ppm phosphate, it is only less efficient in lowering nutrient concentrations than Elimi-NP. If lowering nutrients is not of priority Elimi-NP is still quite effective in controlling nutrients and keeping the nutrients in balance.

Then why do they state this in their Elimi-NP Application and Dosage instructions: "With a nitrate-phosphate ratio greater than 10:1, we recommend the use of Tropic Marin® NP-Bacto-Balance rather than Tropic Marin® Elimi-NP, to best adjust the nutrient concentrations."

I think I have given the answer above. I wonder why you are asking this question again. Did I miss something?

 

[Hans-Werner]

If you were concerned about misunderstandings you could give the alkalinity as 2,140 meq/L = 6,000 dKH. That helps makes it clear that it is a per volume measurement.

If 2,140 meq/L would be the more common unit it would be very easy:

2,140 meq/L * 0.5 L = 1,070 meq.

Unfortunately the more common and at least in Germany the only common "dKH" or "° KH" does not contain "L" or "l" explicitly.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

If 2,140 meq/L would be the more common unit it would be very easy:

2,140 meq/L * 0.5 L = 1070 meq.

Unfortunately the more common and at least in Germany the only common "dKH" or "° KH" does not contain "L" or "l" explicitly.

Yes, dKH is more common in the US as well, but if anyone had uncertainty, I think it would clear it up.

That said, perhaps others should weigh in as I may not represent a typical reefer.

What do others think a good label for alk potency in an alk supplement should be ?

 

[rtparty]

There is no way the average reefer looks at or cares about the alk potency. Tell them how much to dose as a starting point and go from there. That’s all they care about.

You could remove the potency and no average reefer would ever know or care

 

[ingchr1]

I think I have given the answer above. I wonder why you are asking this question again. Did I miss something?

Yes, the Elimi-NP Application and Dosage Instructions states the following:

But you state:

...This ratio is only important at low phosphate concentrations below 0.1 ppm.

If this ratio is not important when one would be using Elimi-NP per the dosing instructions (>.01ppm), then why is that statement in the instructions for Elimi-NP?

Example:

NO3 = 8.0PPM
PO4 = 0.30PPM

Ratio > 10:1

Following the official Elimi-NP Application and Dosage Instructions I should dose NP-Bato-Balance, but your forum post states the ratio is not important since my PO4 is > 0.1PPM.

Which product should I dose with the NO3 and PO4 given?

 

[Hans-Werner]

Yes, the Elimi-NP Application and Dosage Instructions states the following:

But you state:



If this ratio is not important when one would be using Elimi-NP per the dosing instructions (>.01ppm), then why is that statement in the instructions for Elimi-NP?

Example:

NO3 = 8.0PPM
PO4 = 0.30PPM

Ratio > 10:1

Following the official Elimi-NP Application and Dosage Instructions I should dose NP-Bato-Balance, but your forum post states the ratio is not important since my PO4 is > 0.1PPM.

Which product should I dose with the NO3 and PO4 given?

As it is frequently in reef aquarium care the answer is not as simple as the question, because it depends ...

... it depends for example from the way nutrients are processed in your tank. Some tanks oxidize nutrients very fast, maybe with ozone or oxidizing filters. In these tanks there may be a net supply of phosphate with NP-Bacto-Balance. Knowing this the answer is very clear, Elimi-NP.

Other tanks may make much better use of the organic carbon dosed with NP-Bacto-Balance and show a net lowering of the phosphate concentration. Here NP-Bacto-Balance may be the better option because it additionally optimizes the nutrient ratio by lowering nitrate concentration much more than phosphate.

Also the opinions of the reefers about the "best phosphate concentration" in their tanks may differ. This is why I gave you this answer before:

NP-Bacto-Balance may also be used above 0.1 ppm phosphate, it is only less efficient in lowering nutrient concentrations than Elimi-NP. If lowering nutrients is not of priority Elimi-NP is still quite effective in controlling nutrients and keeping the nutrients in balance.

I thought this answer would have clarified this.

 

[Pod_01]

There is no way the average reefer looks at or cares about the alk potency. Tell them how much to dose as a starting point and go from there. That’s all they care about.

You could remove the potency and no average reefer would ever know or care

Just an opinion, maybe add a line like this:
10ml/ 100L +1 dKh. ( made up numbers)
Have similar line for Calcium.

The handy calculator does it:

Potency is useful, but you require particular knowledge to use it. Maybe make it really tiny fine print….

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I certainly agree that a calculator (as for your liquid buffer):

Liquid Buffer | Produktinformationen

www.tropic-marin-smartinfo.com

or even the usual TM recommendation of something like:

"The addition of 1 fl.oz./30 ml of each solution will raise the calcium level of 10 US-gal./35 l by approx. 15 ppm and the alkalinity by 2.2 °dH."

is better than a simple potency number.

For AFR, I'd also add the notation to not test for (24? 48 h?) after dosing since it takes time for the alkalinity to become detectable.

 

[ingchr1]

As it is frequently in reef aquarium care the answer is not as simple as the question, because it depends ...

... it depends for example from the way nutrients are processed in your tank. Some tanks oxidize nutrients very fast, maybe with ozone or oxidizing filters. In these tanks there may be a net supply of phosphate with NP-Bacto-Balance. Knowing this the answer is very clear, Elimi-NP.

Other tanks may make much better use of the organic carbon dosed with NP-Bacto-Balance and show a net lowering of the phosphate concentration. Here NP-Bacto-Balance may be the better option because it additionally optimizes the nutrient ratio by lowering nitrate concentration much more than phosphate.

Also the opinions of the reefers about the "best phosphate concentration" in their tanks may differ. This is why I gave you this answer before:

I thought this answer would have clarified this.

Can it be summarized that it is not as simple as the Carbon Dosing Scale leads one to believe? One needs to see what happens to PO4 (and NO3?) when using the selected carbon dosing product as well?

Instead of just a range, would it be better to also give recommendations based on stability of PO4 when using the selected product?

In the official Dosing and Application instructions I do not get out of them that I should also be looking at PO4 stability, just that if my PO4 is X.XX ppm I should use X-Product.

Thank you

 

[Hans-Werner]

Just an opinion, maybe add a line like this:
10ml/ 100L +1 dKh. ( made up numbers)
Have similar line for Calcium.

The handy calculator does it:

Potency is useful, but you require particular knowledge to use it. Maybe make it really tiny fine print….

On or homepage we already have a similar calculator, please see here scrolling down. We also don't give the dKH for All-For-Reef on our homepage.

At the label on the powder product we write: "1000 ml of the solution supplies the aquarium with approx. ... 6,000° of carbonate hardeners.

On the 250 ml bottle of liquid we write: 250 ml supplies the aquarium with ... 1,400° of carbonate hardeners ...

We don't give the concentrations directly.

 

[bshonesy]

First many bacteria in a bottle contain spores of bacteria, that can last indefinitely (these are more that likely heterotrophs, as compared to obligate autotrophs). As @Spare time mentioned there have been at least a couple experiments that are posted on R2R that show which ones seem to work, what tank conditions are required, and there is a discussion of the expiration date issue.

Has anyone actually cultured any of these bacterial products and confirmed that they at least even contain bacteria? Then my next question would be do they actually contain the strains that the manufacturer’s are saying are included (or that are intended even if they don’t include the strains in the label)? One has to wonder because it’s not trivial to maintain isolated strains of bacteria in culture. I’d love to know how/if these products are QC’d.

As for the products being spores and therefore having long shelf life’s, most marine bacteria that would be involved in the nitrogen cycle, and thus might be sold as a reef product, for example Nitrosomonas, Nitrobacter, Pseudomonas, and Paracoccus, are primarily non-spore-forming. These are mainly gram negative. Most of the spore forming are gram positive. I am aware that there are some gram positive spore forming species out there like Bacillus (I think Dr Tim’s biodiversity contains a Bacillus species). I’m not suggesting that all or most of these bacterial products are BS, I know that they do speed up a cycle, so there’s something happening, but I’m just curious what others think about some of these. Especially the ones that are designed/marketed for established tanks??

 

[bshonesy]

Difference is people consume soda. What you put in your body is different than what you pour into your tank. The law differentiate between people and animals. I say this from experience a little bit as I had a vet perform, in retrospect, what I now believe was completely unnecessary surgery on a cat. Animals are treated as goods/property in Virginia anyway. Vet kills your cat, well ... here's $1k to buy a new one and that's after you sue them. Hardly worth the effort.

Malpractice is a little different than product labeling. There are plenty of cases where this has happened to humans as well unfortunately. The FDA does regulate drugs for animals just like humans. As you point out the regulations may be different, but you still have to provide well controlled data that a product is a safe and effective treatment for whatever indication and animal you’re labeling it for. Really sorry to hear about your cat, I can’t imagine going through that, it’s hard enough to lose a pet, much less in that manner.

 

[WillpoleReefers]

Well, Seachem has stooped to a new low in misinformation and ignorance. Here is their response:

Support FD (Seachem Laboratories) Dec 6, 2023, 17:41 AST Hello! Thank you for the email. The hydroxide blend in Balance will bind up acid sources in the tank, thus raising the pH. It also interacts with the carbonate and converts it to bicarbonate. Ultimately, it does not raise alkalinity, but rather is re-organizing the balance of the existing buffers". Best regards, FD

In the world of vet medicine I have watched snake oil claims for years with dismay. It has got a little harder to make them due to regulatory pressures but there is still a massive amount of marketing led pseudoscience out there! Anyway this grim reply gave me a small bittersweet comfort in that I haven’t seen anything this bad in my own world for a number of years,

Steve

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

In the world of vet medicine I have watched snake oil claims for years with dismay. It has got a little harder to make them due to regulatory pressures but there is still a massive amount of marketing led pseudoscience out there! Anyway this grim reply gave me a small bittersweet comfort in that I haven’t seen anything this bad in my own world for a number of years,

Steve

In this vein, the world of herbal, vitamin, and mineral and other supplement advertising is totally out of control. One can find a product claiming to "support" just about anything.

Here's the first example I pulled up:

"Absolute Focus is a daily nootropic supplement that promotes mental performance, focus, learning, clarity, alertness, cognitive improvement, logical reasoning, memory recall, overall energy and more.

Frequently referred to as the "smart pill" or "limitless pill" due to its incredible results and industry-leading performance."

Seriously, wow! Why even go to school. All you need to do is pop pills like this one. lol

And how many people even know what nootropic means. I certainly did not. It just sounds sciency.

 

[elysics]

In this vein, the world of herbal, vitamin, and mineral and other supplement advertising is totally out of control. One can find a product claiming to "support" just about anything.

Here's the first example I pulled up:

"Absolute Focus is a daily nootropic supplement that promotes mental performance, focus, learning, clarity, alertness, cognitive improvement, logical reasoning, memory recall, overall energy and more.

Frequently referred to as the "smart pill" or "limitless pill" due to its incredible results and industry-leading performance."

Seriously, wow! Why even go to school. All you need to do is pop pills like this one. lol

And how many people even know what nootropic means. I certainly did not. It just sounds sciency.

The people buying these pills know what nootropic means. It's an entire branch of the supplement industry and if you try to look a bit into it it gets a little bit scary. No doubt some of them have actual effects, just no real proven guidance on dosage and what they're even for and whether they are harmful longterm. Just bro sciency people hyping each other up trying random combinations and dosages doing human experiments on themselves.

 

[WillpoleReefers]

In this vein, the world of herbal, vitamin, and mineral and other supplement advertising is totally out of control. One can find a product claiming to "support" just about anything.

Here's the first example I pulled up:

"Absolute Focus is a daily nootropic supplement that promotes mental performance, focus, learning, clarity, alertness, cognitive improvement, logical reasoning, memory recall, overall energy and more.

Frequently referred to as the "smart pill" or "limitless pill" due to its incredible results and industry-leading performance."

Seriously, wow! Why even go to school. All you need to do is pop pills like this one. lol

And how many people even know what nootropic means. I certainly did not. It just sounds sciency.

Yea …supports, a warning word. A bit like “natural”. I think those are programmed in at marketing class these days though. I get natural recited to me through the day at work like it is a mantra. Even for products claiming an evidence base I worry about what level of science gets deployed before the marketing hordes get let loose with their PowerPoints and glossy leaflets. 1x n=10 studies seem to be the order of the day often. Sounds like that would be one study more than went into the buffer rearrangement claim though.

Steve