RennjiDK
-
Posts
144 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Feedback
0%
Content Type
Forums
Downloads
Store
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Profiles
Posts posted by RennjiDK
-
-
On 8/11/2023 at 1:47 AM, Galabar said:
This is the same thing you mentioned previously. They aren't able to measure a reduction in ammonia. There was no testing of the actually claims that Seachem made -- that Prime protects fauna from ammonia.
Are you seriously suggesting that Prime wraps fish in some kind of protective bubble?
On 8/11/2023 at 1:47 AM, Galabar said:Maybe the ammonia is going into and out of a complexed state quickly enough to be detected, but not quickly enough to cause problems for fauna. Again, who knows.
Scientists. Scientists know. Also most people with common sense, because that is literally impossible.
On 8/11/2023 at 1:47 AM, Galabar said:Your argument is that you can still detect ammonia after using Prime. That's not enough.
It is, because it's still there. We can see it.
On 8/11/2023 at 1:47 AM, Galabar said:The bottom line is that you aren't directly attacking the claim that Seachem is making. You (or someone) will need to actual test it. There may simply be a mechanism that you haven't thought of yet.
There is not.
On 8/11/2023 at 1:47 AM, Galabar said:So, again, I ask, what experiments would you recommend that would actually confirm your claim that Prime is useless in this regard?
They've ready been done and proven. You need to experiment and provide evidence for your rapidly fluctuating nitrogen compond/bio shield theory.
On 8/11/2023 at 1:47 AM, Galabar said:Side note: although it seems cruel, I think experimenting with Prime and fish would be ethical if you considered the long-term ramifications of knowing whether Prime actual does what it claims to do.
You really seem to want to kill those fish, because you keep saying that over and over. Please don't kill those poor fish.
-
On 8/11/2023 at 1:35 AM, Galabar said:
The link above seems to talk those about possibilities. There could be any number of things going on. Maybe it creates a cage of some sort (https://pubs.acs.org/page/inocaj/InorganicCagesandContainers.html). Who knows.
The point is that you are trying to falsify Seachem's claims in the wrong way. You are trying to chase down every possible way that Seachem could be coming between ammonia and fauna and trying to exhaustively list all ways of measuring/detecting the ammonia.
Let me ask you this: describe an experiment where you would use Prime and some fauna to test Seachem's claims.
https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/prime-does-not-remove-ammonia.885857/
Here is the follow up link to the one you posted earlier. After the experiments concluded, Randy himself says that the claims of seachem are completely unsubstantiated. If multiple professional marine chemists have conducted separate experiments and arrived at the same conclusion, and you still dont believe them, I don't know what else to tell you.
-
On 8/11/2023 at 12:33 AM, Galabar said:
So, your claim is that Prime doesn't temporarily detoxify/bind with ammonia? That seems to be what the above link is discussing. That particular issue doesn't seem to be settled.
You seem to be coming from the angle that you can't detect a difference in ammonia when using Prime. In particular you can still detect ammonia using seneye.
You might change your thinking a bit -- rather than being able to detect ammonia, think about it as "is the ammonia in a state where it can harm fauna." When coming from that angle, I bet you could devise an experiment to help confirm or deny Seachem's claims.
I think where you might be falling over is assuming that detecting ammonia falsifies Seachem's claims. I don't think it does. Rather, what would falsify Seachem's claims would be to show that Prime doesn't protect fauna in the presence of ammonia. That might be more difficult, but I think that is what needs to be done here.
If prime was able to "bind" with ammonia (chemically change it into a different compound), it would not be able to show as NH3. If it converted it into another form of nitrogen, we would be able to register it. Since neither of these claims are true via any test method applied so far, it does not work. There is no such thing as "detoxifying" a compound. You detoxify it by converting it into somthing else. That is, unless you're suggesting that alchemy is real, and seachem has fundamentally changed our understanding of the universe?
-
On 8/11/2023 at 12:17 AM, Galabar said:
Ok, so your main claim is that Prime interferes with the API ammonia test. That doesn't seem like a major reason to get frustrated. Is anyone disagreeing with you about that?
Yes, both the above linked experiment and your edited reply. Look, if it worked, then it would be able to be proven. You can dose distilled water to a concentration of 2ppm NH3, then dump an entire 250ml bottle of prime in. When tested with a seneye, it will show 2ppm, minus the dilution that the 250ml of extra liquid created. It does not work, and has never been proven to. Not one single person in a lab environment has been able to substantiate the claim.
There are 4 threads on R2R, 2 major ones, including the one you linked above. Every single chemist came to the same conclusion. Why is it so hard to believe?
-
On 8/11/2023 at 12:11 AM, Galabar said:
Are you saying there's zero debate that Prime interferes with the API ammonia test?
Yes. It absolutely does. The chemical reaction was posted in my reply.
-
On 8/10/2023 at 11:52 PM, Galabar said:
This looks interesting (details possible ammonia and Prime interactions, also mentioning seneye):
Seems like there is a lot of interesting thoughts/ideas flying around about Prime.
I guess a (brutal) experiment would be to maintain tanks of fish with the same (harmful) ammonia concentrations, but constantly adding Prime to one (yikes). Another would be how long fish survive in a bag with and without Prime added (double yikes).
There is zero debate, and that is hardly an experiment. To quote the very same chemist you just linked:
I don't get how many times this needs to be beaten to death. Chemisty is chemistry. Like math, it doesn't change.
-
On 8/10/2023 at 10:32 PM, OnlyGenusCaps said:
The thread was shut down because people got max aggro about it, but there are chemical means that suggest Prime could work pretty well as the label says. Up front I'll say, I am not here to argue about this with anyone. I just thought you might be interested in some of the chemistry and patents related to that and similar products. If not, feel free to ignore it and move on. No hurt feeling from me if that's what you decide. (I know it's a lot of hedging language, but this topic seems to bring out something in a few folks like they have a dog in that fight or something. I don't know why. But now I do a bit of this first. Sorry.)
It's a long read, but I really like the post:
Every time I try to tell someone that prime doesn't work, this "experiment" gets posted. This is the problem with hobbyist trying to conduct scientific research. They are not scientists, specifically in this case, chemists. The api NH3/4 reagent is a salicylate based test, which uses the chemical's ability to change colors in the presence of ammonia. The active declorinator in prime binds to salicylate and converts it into a form of chloride. Guess what prime actually does remove? Chloride. All that you are doing by dosing prime in an api test is removing the reagent you just put in the tube. That's why they never change colors, and why when tested by other, non salicylate testing means, like a gas exchange sensor system (like seneye), they all still show whatever ammonia level was dosed at the start of the test. There's no controversy at all. It's very basic chemistry.
-
Gas exchange is the primary driving force of ph in aquariums. Algae, especially cyano, can raise it dramatically, but that's in enclosed environments. That amount of green algae probably will gove you a ph bump, but it will be less than 1. Are you running an air pump next to that window? Do you have a lot of fresh air around the tank? The other issue is using an api kit for testing ph. I would personally look for a pen style probe, which can be calibrated before use.
-
1
-
-
On 8/9/2023 at 3:05 PM, madmark285 said:
I asked about this, someone gave me this link. I bought Matrix for ammonia and nitrites, I don't believe these guys about nitrates. Just keeping anoxic bacteria alive is difficult.
It's actually fairly easy, and pretty much any media including sand can do it. There are plenty of low oxygen environments in our tanks. Anaerobic bacteria, like most things, quickly become carbon limited in an aquarium. Adding a carbon source (alcohol, vinegar, sugar, etc) will cause them to bloom and metabolize the excess No3. The problem in FW is that once this happens, the bacteria die off with no means to remove them from the water. As they decompose, they release an equal amount of NH3 as the No3 they've just converted, giving you a net zero change to your nitrates.
On 8/9/2023 at 12:45 AM, IanB said:Almost all YouTube videos that I have seen purporting to prove or disprove this are either flawed (using prime or ammonia-binding conditioners which PondGuru and others say will prevent their media from completing the cycle), one-offs without controls, or have so many uncontrolled variables that their conclusions are suspect. I’d love to see a quality study (and one may be out there that I haven’t come across!) even though in a planted aquarium it matters little to me as I like having nitrates and have to add more via ferts otherwise my plants keep them at zero.
Prime is chemically incapable of binding to or converting NH3/4. It absolutely will not stall your cycle, because it has no effect on ammonia. It's just marketing lies from Seachem.
On 8/9/2023 at 12:38 PM, Lennie said:Actually Jason has a video about it explaining why you don't actually "need" to do that scientifically. I cleaned mined in tap water multiple times and put back into newly changed water where I dosed prime already. Haven't noticed anything wrong with cycle before 🤷🏼♂️
In case you haven't seen it, here you go
If tap water could sterilize your biomedia, it would also be able to sterilize your hands, but 100% of doctors and biologists would still recommended using soap.
-
If your only goal is nitrification, I wouldn't worry about it. You're still going to have to clean your sponges periodically, and they will eventually degrade, though adding good mechanical filtration before hand will prolong the maintenance. I'd look at floss with different sediment grades, like the rolls from intank, to prolong it even further.
-
1
-
-
It's just math. Sponges, depending on ppi, have more surface area than other media types. That's not to say that they're better. They just have more surface area for nitirying bacteria to populate. They're actually worse in the sense that they don't allow bacteria and microfauna with low flow requirements to populate them.
Unless you're looking at pond studies or things published by environmental researchers, you're not going to find a lot of FW aquarium scientific "research" based in actual science.The best you will find is sites like this, that are "science adjacent".
For the record, I do like the site and have quoted that table before, but there's also a lot of claims they make I know to be false.
-
3
-
-
Equipment:
Lifegard 7g full view
Chihiros B series 30cm
GLA paintball reg and atomic diffuser
Aqueon Pro 50w
Seachem Matrix 1L
-
1
-
-
On 7/22/2023 at 10:48 PM, nabokovfan87 said:
If you haven't... be sure to check out "Chasing Coral"
Nice work.I haven't watched it yet myself, but I'm aware of the issue. I'm a long time SW guy, and a lot of hobbiests/public aquariums are growing frags to later repopulate the reefs. For anyone not in the know, this isn't hobbiests. Most fish and corals are captive bred now a days. It's more of a contaminate/climate issue.
-
3
-
-
The tank was fun setting up, and I saw amazing growth, but it was just boring to me. The kessil A80s gave 50 par on a 24" tank (13" depth mounted 6" off the surface) and the cuba was carpeting beautifully. Another 3 weeks and it would have been full. All I did was dose easy green x2 a week and set my co2 to 3bps.
Here's the evolution of the tank and the result 8 weeks in. The stems were to the water line, but i trimmed to the height of the scape and replanted, so they're not visible in the pic:
And the new setup:
It's a simple clown/bta tank with some zoas, but I really like it. They've both accepted the btas as their host and are so much fun to watch. They're like 2 cats with a cardboard box.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Moving is a stressful event for fish. That, combined with a new water source compounds stress. It's not entirely impossible that the move itself cause these issues. If you were using the same canister with the same media, I very much doubt you'd see any sort of ammonia spike. What is an issue is disrupting and reusing substrate. There is next to no nitrification happening on the surface of the substrate and anaerobic bacteria break down waste which form very toxic compounds in low oxygen environments. When you disturb the substrate, these are released into the water column and can cause sudden and unexpected deaths within a matter of hours.
-
1
-
-
Is there a certain setpoint of "X bioload generates 10ppm NO3/PO4 weekly" or something to that effect? I assume its calculations are for a sterile tank with no nutrient export?
-
1
-
-
On 5/29/2023 at 12:46 AM, Ninjoma said:
It would be really helpful if you:
1. Shared your experience keeping amano shrimp in brackish water and what the negative impacts were on them.
2. Provided scientific evidence that shows that keeping amano shrimp in brackish water has negative impacts on their quality of life.
I personally do not find it very helpful to be told "you're not suppose to do x" when I am successfully doing x.
1. I have no experience keeping amanos in brackish environments long term. I researched it a while ago and determined it was a bad idea.
2. That's not how science works. You don't get to make claims, and then demand evidence to disprove your personal theories regarding highly studied, peer reviewed subjects. Show me your study of Amano shrimp in a brackish environment. Have you analyzed exoskeletal compositions, molting or breeding patterns, and life expectancy? How has calcium and magnesium consumption changed in your environment compared to a FW control? Has there been any change in trace element consumption with the added macro elements? How many data sets have you run with these experiments? Do you have both biological and chemical scientists reviewing your study for inconsistencies?
-
On 5/28/2023 at 5:14 PM, Ninjoma said:
Tell that to the amano shrimp in my brackish tank.
And I know several people with fancy goldfish, which have been in a <1g bowl for several years. Surviving isn't the same as husbandry. Amanos are not SW shrimp, and while they may take up the extra available calcium during spawning and early development, they're not supposed to be kept in that environment long term.
-
The SW nerites and FW nerites are similar families, but require different environments to survive. A lot of species move from FW/SW to brackish to spawn, but don't necessarily do well in that environment as their daily home (ie Amano shrimp). Really what you'd want to replicate is raising each respective species in their natural habitats, and then moving to a brackish environment during spawning periods. I personally think it's more effort than the return is worth, but if it's something you want to pursue, there will be a lot of difficult learning periods along the way. There's a reason why most brackish spawning species are wild caught.
-
I would be extremely interested in this as well. There is not enough FW discussions regarding micro bio and fauna, imo.
-
On 5/28/2023 at 4:15 PM, Mmiller2001 said:
Stop using crushed coral and argonite and use potassium carbonate. No reason to push calcium through the roof.
Add an air stone as well. Excessive co2 build up in the surrounding air will cause ph to drop rapidly in a tank. This is something reefers have know for years, due to holiday parties and ph probe alarms going off. Adding sufficient oxygenation can boost your ph almost a whole unit.
-
1
-
-
On 5/27/2023 at 1:09 PM, Biotope Biologist said:
There is no such a thing as a freshwater moray. There are freshwater eels but morays are not one of them.
They can live long term in freshwater. Up to 5 years. But in the aquaria gymnothorax do best with at least some salt. A minimum I would say of 1.008.
In the wild they travel to freshwater streams and river inlets to spawn. But evidence suggests that they only tolerate freshwater.
If you're going to run brackish, there are salt mixes that do not have the added Cal, Alk, and trace supplements needed for coral. I believe Brightwell makes one.
-
1
-
-
I have a GLA reg and it's pretty decent. A lot of people recommend them over coop, fzone, co2 art and the like.
-
Nope. Now I just buy smaller tanks so I can scape/reboot more often.
-
1
-
1
-
Closed .
in General Discussion
Posted · Edited by RennjiDK
No, they are not. Every single chemist on that thread agrees that it does not work. The only people who disagree (and very few I might add) are hobbyists like yourself who cannot get over the fact that a company would print false claims on a label, just to sell more product. In fact, your specific argument gets called out by Randy himself.