# aquariumscience.org



## carlsj2012

I just read the Purigen post you linked. Wow!!! I like his work, and will be diving deeper into this site. Thanks for this!


----------



## Blue Ridge Reef

I'd switched all 11 of my current aquariums from carbon to Purigen over the last decade or so. I'm going to start only using mechanical filtration as the media gets spent and see if they don't chug along like they have been. I had an aquarium mentor in the late 80's and early 90's tell me that chemical filtration wasn't important and that a 10% water change beat a gallon of any of it in your filter. I chalked it up to him being old school at the time and have always used some form of it. The longer I do this aquarium thing, the more his advice holds up.


----------



## Deanna

So, he doesn’t like Seachem. I like what you usually post but, to me, this “aquariumscience.org” person is no different from the huckster at anoxicfiltrationsystem.

Like his anecdotal studies, I’ve also studied Purigen and Prime. There is no doubt, from my anecdotal testing, but that Purigen clarified my water overnight, when AC could not. Additionally, I’ve reduced nitrate significantly when using Purigen, as a result of ammonia being removed. I’ve added Purigen and removed it, repeatedly, to verify this. This was in my pre-high tech days. Regarding Prime, I’ve measured TAN levels at 2ppm+ and pH >7 (two separate accidents) and added Prime. No fish problems which, rightly or wrongly, I assign to Prime. Normally, I would have expected multiple deaths. Further, since I began using a drop of Prime in my LFS bags of fish, where two-hour drives home are involved, I’ve had dramatically fewer short-term deaths.

I doubt that the aquariumscience.org author is what is claimed, otherwise proof of the claim would be provided. For example, I can claim that I know what I’m talking about because I hold several doctorates, from Ivy League schools, in nuclear physics, biology, chemistry and …what did I miss? We don’t even know if his testing methods were actually followed according to his statements or verified. How can we tell if he just made everything up out of thin air? How do we know that I don’t do the same?

Credulity is rampant everywhere on the Internet.


----------



## Blue Ridge Reef

Your and my own experiences are necessarily anecdotal. "Fewer fish die after adding a drop of Prime to the shipping water," isn't data without numbers of fish that died with and without it, using fishes of what species, at what temperatures, in what volume of water and so on (as you clearly know). His methodology is explained and straightforward; he tests the products against a control and reports his findings. I don't see a bias against SeaChem in particular, seeing as Boyd, Poly Filter and others got the same results. The author's anonymity doesn't bother me, and I have no reason to suspect he's lying about his credentials. He doesn't profit or use ads on the website, nor have affiliate links so wouldn't appear to be doing it for the money. If you find no value in it, feel free to move on. I just thought it would be of interest to some folks here.


----------



## Deanna

That's right: our experiences are anecdotal ...just like his. 

"His methodology is explained and straightforward; he tests the products against a control and reports his findings. " In fact, we don't know what he does.

You are also correct: you "have no reason to suspect he's lying about his credentials" BUT .. you also have no reason to suspect he's NOT lying about his credentials. That is what credulity is all about.

I won't respond further about this, as I have much respect for your input over the years and don't want to detract from this, but please be free to add a response to my comments, knowing that I'm ok with it, since it's your thread.


----------



## Blue Ridge Reef

We've had many amicable discussions over the years and I hope that doesn't stop now. I am rather surprised at your quickness to call him out as a "huckster" akin to the anoxic filter guy.


Deanna said:


> In fact, we don't know what he does.


I don't understand this objection? He explains each step of the testing methods. For Purigen, he set up 8 identical tanks, 2 with P, 2 with AC, 2 with Chemi Pure, 2 as a control and tested nitrate levels at 2, 4, 6, and 8 weeks; adding 4 PPM NH4 daily. Unless you doubt that he tests anything at all and is just putting this website up to stir the puddin'. Which I admit is possible; but I'm not sure to what end. He's not selling anything. Not even ads. By all means continue posting if you have thoughts on the matter. I could critique his writing style (in particular his use of the word "proof" rather than "evidence") but assuming in good faith that he's actually carrying out the tests he's reporting on, I find it potentially very valuable. It's exactly the kind of thing I wish I had the time to do with my own empty tanks. Being in this industry I've lost a lot of faith in aquatic products living up the manufacturer claims, and am eager to learn what works as advertised and what doesn't.


----------



## Deanna

Let me get back to you later.


----------



## billb

Blue Ridge Reef said:


> We've had many amicable discussions over the years and I hope that doesn't stop now. I am rather surprised at your quickness to call him out as a "huckster" akin to the anoxic filter guy.
> 
> I don't understand this objection? He explains each step of the testing methods. For Purigen, he set up 8 identical tanks, 2 with P, 2 with AC, 2 with Chemi Pure, 2 as a control and tested nitrate levels at 2, 4, 6, and 8 weeks; adding 4 PPM NH4 daily. Unless you doubt that he tests anything at all and is just putting this website up to stir the puddin'. Which I admit is possible; but I'm not sure to what end. He's not selling anything. Not even ads. By all means continue posting if you have thoughts on the matter. I could critique his writing style (in particular his use of the word "proof" rather than "evidence") but assuming in good faith that he's actually carrying out the tests he's reporting on, I find it potentially very valuable. It's exactly the kind of thing I wish I had the time to do with my own empty tanks. Being in this industry I've lost a lot of faith in aquatic products living up the manufacturer claims, and am eager to learn what works as advertised and what doesn't.


Hello Blue Ridge Reef, I haven't looked at the site but would suggest that the example you gave regarding Purigen was poorly designed. If you look right on Seachems information page regarding Purigen, It explains ammonia control this way:
"Purigen® controls ammonia, nitrites and nitrates by removing nitrogenous organic waste that would otherwise release these harmful compounds. "

It removes larger, nitrogen containing molecules like amino acids or proteins that would otherwise get broken down into ammonia and nitrite. It doesn't remove ammonia directly. So testing it by adding ammonia to tanks is a flawed experimental setup and will not demonstrate Purigen's effectiveness The person behind this may have good intentions but he needs to show more rigor in these evaluations


----------



## somewhatshocked

Meh, that guy. In some cases, he has absolutely no idea what he's talking about and it's very apparent after spending a few minutes on the site. In many instances, he's just making it up as he goes along.

Red flag number one should be that they're "anonymous". Though, if anyone is so inclined, you can check old domain registry data to find information that leads to their identity. Which I'd encourage folks to do so they can discover why he is hyper-critical of brands made by companies that he doesn't financially benefit from. (This is where I'd raise an eyebrow and purse my lips in-person - like a meemaw with some sass.)

Example: his rants on commercial substrates for planted tanks. Saying Eco-Complete (crushed lava rock) is the same or similar to ADA Aqua Soil Amazonia is absurd to the point of laughable. That's just one example. On the same page, he claims Eco-Complete is also "simply ground up calcined iron rich clay soil" - equally absurd. CaribSea confirms it's just lava rock... in case anyone who has ever seen it wasn't already aware. I published emails from them about it more than a decade ago that also confirms that it's inert. It's not calcined clay like Safe-T-Sorb or cat litter. I mean... what?

His claims about Purigen are not based in reality. I don't buy his claims at all. I don't use it to clear ammonia or nitrate (but it _does_ work for that - see other posts about aminos/proteins - that's why it's popular with shrimpers) but for polishing purposes and it absolutely works where he claims it doesn't. A Purigen reactor (even if using knock-off resign, which I prefer because of price) can clear a 20gal tank of blackwater absurdly fast. Regular filtration media and carbon absolutely cannot. I used a large pillow of it in an AC70 earlier today to clear up my 40B after spilling nearly a quart(! don't ask - wasn't fully awake) of what I make and refer to as leaf litter concentrate. Don't know how fast it was but it was fast enough that it impressed me - even after years and years of use.

Also have to nitpick the bacteria in a bottle bit. Not all of it is necessarily garbage. SafeStart Plus, Bio-Spira (marine. never tried the fresh.) and Dr. Tim's are all reliable if they're properly refrigerated or kept from temperature extremes from start to finish. Brightwell has some good stuff, as well. His experiments don't mention temperature at all. Have used the ones I mention here in tanks and have been able to process 3-4 PPM of ammonia in just a day or two. Fluval/Nutrafin(?) used to have a good product but it's hit-or-miss lately due to shipping from the manufacturer. It was better when it was produced in Canada. I still strongly dislike the products that work for their intended purpose. I think most tanks should be run for a month or two with daily doses of ammonia. Even if they can process it all from day one. Note: Stability is garbage. He's right about that.

I wouldn't say he's Novak-level huckster. Because many of his experiments are, by all appearances, sound or sound-ish.

P.S. His claim about water hardness not mattering is flipping psycho.


----------



## Deanna

Well, I’m back and, since you asked me to continue, ...

I see that other posts have appeared challenging the details of his work. My technical challenges were merely based upon my own contradictory experiences. However, I’ll offer a challenge to his MO.

I make a lot of claims, and am also very careful to hide my identity. Therefore, I have no expectation that anyone should necessarily believe me, and I make no effort to try to convince those that reject my suggestions that I am a god that should not be challenged. His MO is to state that he is a god and that those that think not, are worthy of denigration. Fundamentally, I become very suspicious when ‘methinks that he doth protest too much’ (please overlook my likely mangling of the quote) …particularly in advance of any direct challenge.

Per your question as to why he would create such a website: ego satisfaction is a powerful motivator for some. Look to FB for proof of this. If he needs stroking, he should provide verifiable identification and seek independent, and verifiable, corroboration. Would he pass fact checking with his current approach?

I feel as though I am now ‘piling on,’ but I truly believe that, in it’s current form, his is one website that should be discounted.


----------



## FischAutoTechGarten

I remember the Novak vs APD and individuals lawsuits from like 20 years ago. Wanted $15 million for emotional damages because he was called out on internet forums...


----------



## Blue Ridge Reef

Having spent a little time on the substrate and food sections, I'm more dubious than I was yesterday; though not ready to call the guy out as a fraud. I think his intentions are good, and there doesn't seem to be branding bias which I *know* I'm not above. I think we are all guilty of believing the ways we do things are right, and this fellow is no different. And testing to reach a foregone conclusion is rarely viable, if in fact that's how he is approaching it.


> Per your question as to why he would create such a website: ego satisfaction is a powerful motivator for some. Look to FB for proof of this. If he needs stroking, he should provide verifiable identification and seek independent, and verifiable, corroboration. Would he pass fact checking with his current approach?


Fair enough. I'm just not seeing an ego boost when paired with anonymity -but people are strange creatures.


billb said:


> Hello Blue Ridge Reef, I haven't looked at the site but would suggest that the example you gave regarding Purigen was poorly designed. If you look right on Seachems information page regarding Purigen, It explains ammonia control this way:
> "Purigen® controls ammonia, nitrites and nitrates by removing nitrogenous organic waste that would otherwise release these harmful compounds. "
> 
> It removes larger, nitrogen containing molecules like amino acids or proteins that would otherwise get broken down into ammonia and nitrite. It doesn't remove ammonia directly. So testing it by adding ammonia to tanks is a flawed experimental setup and will not demonstrate Purigen's effectiveness The person behind this may have good intentions but he needs to show more rigor in these evaluations


I wasn't expecting a critique from someone who didn't bother to read the article and for the sake of brevity, I summarized this test. He did in fact test it using larger molecular compounds in the form of powdered fish food:


> Sufficient protein powder was added to the tank to produce a nitrogen level of 4 ppm in the form of ammonia from decomposing food (13% of the protein in food is nitrogen). 4 ppm of nitrogen was added in the form of food every day.


I am unlucky enough to have 24 empty 20 gallon aquariums and the temptation to replicate his chemical filtration experiment is strong. But the amount of cleaning, getting filters running, and coming to the store even on my days off to add NH4 knocks me back to reality. There is no way for 16 straight weeks I would be able to do this daily.



> Also have to nitpick the bacteria in a bottle bit. Not all of it is necessarily garbage.


When I set my store tanks up (identically on fishless cycles as well as a couple of racks using zebra danios), I did tests of several brands of bottled bacteria vs nothing added and there was no rhyme or reason as to which tanks cycled fastest; though the fish-in tanks beat the NH4 tanks generally. Lots of products have come out since I did that, and I obviously didn't test them all but the results were pretty telling and I never felt ethical selling products I didn't believe in and thus have never had a bottled bacteria product on my shelves.

My own belief (arguably bias) that a minimum of products are needed to keep healthy tanks has been reinforced more times than I can count. I was breeding shrimp for probably close to 10 years before I saw people telling me online that Bacter AE was necessary for good survival of babies. People can have a strong belief in the products they buy being responsible for success.

And there is a lot of dishonest marketing out there. To the best of my knowledge aloe vera has never been shown to promote slime coats on fish and yet I get people walking into my shop pretty frequently who think Stress Coat is superior to Prime or other dechlorinators because they saw an ad. I could go on and on. The average planted aquarium hobbyist's misconception about "liquid CO2" doing remotely the same thing as a pressurized gas is a prime example. _If_ this guy is actually performing the test he claims to be, he's doing to lord's work for all of us in the hobby. If he's just making stuff up and posting it online; that's an equally huge disservice.


----------



## somewhatshocked

FischAutoTechGarten said:


> I remember the Novak vs APD and individuals lawsuits from like 20 years ago. Wanted $15 million for emotional damages because he was called out on internet forums...


You're thinking of Robert Novak.


----------



## somewhatshocked

Blue Ridge Reef said:


> My own belief (arguably bias) that a minimum of products are needed to keep healthy tanks


Not sure that's belief and don't believe it's you being biased. I think it's a fact that minimal products are necessary to keep healthy tanks. Heck, it's even ideal. 



Blue Ridge Reef said:


> Bacter AE


Ugh. What a terrible product that causes way more harm than good with newcomers. Makes my head spin.

It's not even what the manufacturer claims most of the time. Honestly can't believe it's legal to sell for its claimed purpose. Bet it wouldn't be if there were a regulator agency to take a look at it. My belief (based on testing done by others) is that it's primarily bulk probiotic powder sold for livestock with some added sugars.



Blue Ridge Reef said:


> And there is a lot of dishonest marketing out there.


That's an understatement! Especially in this hobby. Probably why a website like that is so initially appealing. The marketing surrounding Eco-Complete alone is enough to infuriate half this forum. Never mind all the social media and YouTube hype of unnecessary products that don't live up to any of the hype.

100% agree with you about the ethics of bacteria in a bottle, how it's marketed, how it's sold to be used. It's really almost cruel. Some of the products, when kept in ideal conditions, can be useful in some regard for sure. But for a newcomer starting up their first tank? No way. To dump in a tank you started with fish on day one? Also no way. Maybe for nerds like me to use on occasion for the purpose of cycling a super-acidic shrimp tank in 60-70 days instead of 4-5 months? It can sometimes be helpful. Though, not as helpful as live filter media from another tank that's already adapted to similar conditions. I doubt I would sell it if I had a shop because I already won't recommend it to most people.

.....

About branding bias... we all get into those slumps. I prefer AquaClear and Eheim equipment when I can use them because of decades of past experience. Definitely biased. But this guy's issue is more than bias - it's about financial ties - and I find it personally disappointing that conflicts of interest aren't disclosed. Like @Deanna says, anyone who can't or won't stand by what they claim generally isn't someone to be fully trusted. If you or me say something is garbage, we're attaching our name to it and we're saying it because we really mean it. Because we're probably speaking from direct personal experiences. 

When it comes to experiments from some unidentified individual? I want to see some evidence of what is being claimed. Because there needs to be something of substance to back up those claims. Especially when it comes to combating what is effectively snake oil in a hobby filled with susceptible, young newcomers.


----------



## Blue Ridge Reef

somewhatshocked said:


> About branding bias... we all get into those slumps. I prefer AquaClear and Eheim equipment when I can use them because of decades of past experience. Definitely biased. But this guy's issue is more than bias - it's about financial ties - and I find it personally disappointing that conflicts of interest aren't disclosed.


I don't see the financial ties. Heck, he recommends pot scrubbers for mechanical filtration. If I saw any hint of it anywhere I'd have viewed this whole site differently from the start. Am I missing something?

As you know, I too am a AC & Eheim disciple. I don't even want to think of all the filters I've thrown out during the time those have run continuously. Not to mention no cartridges. I'm just second guessing some of the products I've been buying in lieu of those cartridges being no better than if I'd just used sponges.


----------



## FischAutoTechGarten

somewhatshocked said:


> You're thinking of Robert Novak.


Yeah I am... he gave many fellow plant enthusiasts allot of grief (I think he even went after Tom Barr) just for speaking out about the poor quality of his merchandise and poor customer service. He had a bruised ego... I thought that's what you were referring to....

I guess I'm not familiar with this other Novak of whom you speak that promoted questionable aquatic husbandry practices....

Anecdotal, but my limited experience is such that allot of poret foam in a generous sump resevoir, CO2 injection, UV filtration, good fertiliser regimen,limited light schedules, water changes, water changes, and water changes have brought a measure of success to my aquariums. In person, the clarity of my water columns really gives the impression that fish are floating on air... I haven't needed to latch onto any extremet (extreme) practices.... Now sometimes my stemps (stems) get scrawny... and my deep red plants fade to pinkish red... and my crypts get some holes in their leaves.... so obviously I still have a long way to go... But I'm caustion (cautious) about adopting far out practices to get there....


Holy typos... sorry folks...


----------



## somewhatshocked

somewhatshocked said:


> I don't see the financial ties. Heck, he recommends pot scrubbers for mechanical filtration. If I saw any hint of it anywhere I'd have viewed this whole site differently from the start. Am I missing something?


Mentioned this last night:



> Red flag number one should be that they're "anonymous". Though, if anyone is so inclined, you can check old domain registry data to find information that leads to their identity. Which I'd encourage folks to do so they can discover why he is hyper-critical of brands made by companies that he doesn't financially benefit from. (This is where I'd raise an eyebrow and purse my lips in-person - like a meemaw with some sass.)


Don't want to dox or identify him but it's out there and generally public information. It's just not immediately apparent. Then again, I find people who don't want to be found for a living. So 🤷‍♂️.

Became suspicious initially in looking at the products he rails against and/or is dishonest about - like stuff from Seachem and CaribSea - and there's little to back up his claims.

I'd be more inclined to support someone if they were transparent about their likes and dislikes. Like @Deanna. They don't necessarily identify themselves but make it clear when they like or don't like something and explain why. So I, personally, don't need to know more about their identity.

Sites like that make me really appreciate people who make their biases clear. Specifically when it comes to product reviews.

And to @FischAutoTechGarten: You aren't internetting if you aren't typoing. That's what I tell myself, anyway.


----------



## Leeatl

I don't put much stock in this site and am glad to see some of the members here with similar views. There is a guy on one of my FB groups that references this site all the time. May be the author, I don't know, but he does it to newbies and it makes me so mad. That is the real danger. For beginners to not know if the site is founded in fact or not and take the advice as gospel. There are some remarks about this site on the net. I looked and found them. We all should do the same.


----------



## Blue Ridge Reef

somewhatshocked said:


> Mentioned this last night:


This link brings me back to your previous post. Was there financial incentive I've missed (3 times now, I wouldn't put it past me this week)? Or have you figured out this guy's identity and he's in the industry? If that's the case, I see no qualms about outing him; though that's obviously your call. If he's in the aquatics industry, it would be interesting to learn what company he's with and whether he's ever done a review on their products. I didn't see a whole lot of praise outside of Fluval Bug Bites being rated pretty highly, but I haven't looked into the site much since yesterday. If this guy isn't legit, that's a real downer, because someone should be doing exactly what he claims to be.


----------



## Socratic monologue

FWIW, I couple years ago I tried switching from AC to Purigen and got very poor results in both FW and SW. And also, I agree with that author that Seachem's products are (hyperbolic, but the idea is on target) "99% markup". All of these sorts of products are. So I'm not basing any evaluation on this authors' Purigen or Seachem stance.

Too much of the site reads like conspiracy theory ranting. The 'Homepage' is a rant on "bullcrap on social media" and nine paragraphs of telling the reader how much of an authority he is by simply stating 'I'm an authority, and any criticism of this just rolls off an authority like me', accompanied by a meme cuz he's cool too, apparently. He sure doesn't come off as a "degreed" (high school?) chemist/research scientist. Academic professionals actually tend to display themselves as fairly respectable in their writing in my experience, as they know this is how you get people's positive attention.

Google finds thirteen mentions of PETA (all gratuitous snarky jabs). The numerous claims of lies by marketing departments isn't necessary in evaluating the performance of a filtration medium. Both of these are, argumentatively speaking, fallacies and as tools of rhetoric, juvenile. 

On a section on "Facebook and Fake Accounts" (which is hard to understand why it merits being on an aquarium science website), in which he recounts making claims about a Seachem product on FB that got a bunch of replies:

"The negative comments were interesting. The comments shared syntax and had some common words. I think it is reasonable to allege these criticisms on Facebook originated in the the Seachem marketing department." Reasonable for a person of a certain irrational mindset, perhaps. Getting a lot of criticism (the author goes out of his way to tell that he does) makes a person a bit unreasonable about getting more, I suppose.

The Purigen 'study' doesn't read like one constructed by a research chemist. At all. No reference to the specifics of the experimental conditions, a silly dismissal of the need for statistical analysis, and so on. Given his repeated (Google gives ten pages of hits, about 100 instances) disparaging of Seachem (why this company in particular?) it is quite plausible that this 'data' is simply fabricated (why not photos of the test setup, instead of random fish?). This odd "study" undermines the 'authority' claims on the homepage which in turn undermine any claim on the website that doesn't stand on its own merits.

A collection of claims of questionable veracity, made with an explicit agenda (against social media, corporations, PETA, etc) by someone who won't reveal their real identity and fails completely to establish a trustworthy online identity, is simply more misinformation, more online noise. Worse than worthless.


----------



## Blue Ridge Reef

He's singing to the choir about social media, corporations and PeTA. My biggest gripe is how he throws around the word "proof." I'm far from a degreed chemist but even I know that the results of a single test are at best evidence. If someone would start a Go Fund Me for putting aquarium products through rigorous testing, I would be the first to pony up. The hobby needs it.

I have seen so much change in the preferred methods of aquarium keeping over the decades. When I joined this forum I was using cable heaters under the substrate for planted tanks. I'm not sure those are even made anymore. I bought the most expensive plastic bio media Sera made for reef tank's sumps and within a few years the trend became to use no bio media at all and the sump became little more than a place for your protein skimmer. But the products and their marketing are what keep surprising me. We know that crushed coral substrate is, for all intents and purposes, 10 cent a pound oyster grit. Snow Flakes shrimp food can be bought for pennies on the dollar as a bird food. I've become suspicious of anything with a proprietary "recipe." But I keep buying it. Having 11 tanks; I was buying Purigen by the 2 liter jars and Poly Filter by the big $50 sheet. I can't "see" that either does anything AC doesn't. And I stopped using AC with any regularity ages ago. Why am I buying this stuff? Is it even benefiting my aquariums? I honestly don't know. But I want to.


----------



## Blue Ridge Reef

Beautiful grayband in your avatar, BTW @Socratic monologue. I bred those for a few years, but gave them for colubrids whose babies were more inclined to eat pinkies.


----------



## Socratic monologue

Blue Ridge Reef said:


> But the products and their marketing are what keep surprising me. We know that crushed coral substrate is, for all intents and purposes, 10 cent a pound oyster grit. Snow Flakes shrimp food can be bought for pennies on the dollar as a bird food. I've become suspicious of anything with a proprietary "recipe." But I keep buying it.


Actually, I think crushed coral is closer to crushed limestone, which is about $20 a yard -- about 2200 lbs -- at a landscape supply. Driving over there (twenty miles out past the LFS), convincing them to sell me just 50lbs of it, then rinsing it, grading it, picking out the nails and sticks and wondering if that funny spot is motor oil or what, then realizing once I get it wet it doesn't look nearly as nice as the Fiji Pink in my other tank makes the upcharge for a ready to use, nicely packaged product worth it. 

Worth it to me, anyway, and any research chemist who don't think it is worth it should just go do it their own way. Making a big deal about the fact that my $25 a box eco-friendly laundry detergent is just sodium carbonate, basically, which wholesales for $200 a ton, would be more relevant to more people than the same fact about some niche hobby product, but that author clearly has some very specific bone to pick.

Thanks for the compliment on the alterna. I have a pair (the pictured Loma Alta and a Langtry) that I'll be breeding next year, chosen as early and easy feeders themselves, a trait that can carry over to the offspring. Among the other snakes I regularly breed, I breed knoblochi every year, which can be troublesome starters, and hognose which I've had good luck starting.


----------



## Nature Freak

Great discussion, thanks all. 


Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk


----------



## gjcarew

I'd like to find out who it is and why they have such a hatred for Seachem. 

The "experiments" are at least ATTEMPTS at being scientific, so I think the author deserves some credit. 

Other sections, like fertilization, are pretty laughably silly. Quoting Dustin from Dustin's Fish Tanks as an expert on fertilization, for example. Dustin literally sells dirt on his website, but Seachem are the frauds for selling ferrous gluconate


----------



## Leeatl

I would like to know too for curiosity if nothing else. I can't find anything using Somewhatshocked's suggestion about old domain info. I know a guy that references the site all the time, may be the author. I just dropped out of that FB group today because of his constant pointing to the site.


----------



## Greggz

gjcarew said:


> Quoting Dustin from Dustin's Fish Tanks as an expert on fertilization, for example. Dustin literally sells dirt on his website, but Seachem are the frauds for selling ferrous gluconate


LOL one of the funniest posts I have read in a long time.

Quoting Dustin should be an immediate ban from all serious discussions of growing plants. 

This might be the most ridiculous discussion I have ever seen here. Seems like it was dreamed up by the department of not growing plants.


----------



## Dirty dan

somewhatshocked said:


> Mentioned this last night:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't want to dox or identify him but it's out there and generally public information. It's just not immediately apparent. Then again, I find people who don't want to be found for a living. So 🤷‍♂️.
> 
> Became suspicious initially in looking at the products he rails against and/or is dishonest about - like stuff from Seachem and CaribSea - and there's little to back up his claims.
> 
> I'd be more inclined to support someone if they were transparent about their likes and dislikes. Like @Deanna. They don't necessarily identify themselves but make it clear when they like or don't like something and explain why. So I, personally, don't need to know more about their identity.
> 
> Sites like that make me really appreciate people who make their biases clear. Specifically when it comes to product reviews.
> 
> And to @FischAutoTechGarten: You aren't internetting if you aren't typoing. That's what I tell myself, anyway.


i can contest your seachem claim. i had a tank with no biologocal filtration that had around 3 nitrites and 100 nitrates. i dumped an eighth of a bottle (about 12.5 fluid ounces) then immediately measured everything again and saw no change. i measured an hour later and saw no change. i dumped the rest of the bottle in there and a few days later there was still no change, so i just did a 90% water change then measured again and everything was close to zero. this was a 1.5 gallon tank. i asked the author for a recommendation for a canister filter and bought a sunsun HW-302. when it arrived i immediately set it up and removed the 20 gallon hang on back and 10 gallon hang on back filters from the 20 gallon tank. nitrites and nitrates went as high as my test kit could read (10 nitrite and 250 nitrate are the max and i used aqua care pro test strips and yes i have a lot of fish). about 2 weeks later everything was almost zero so i opened my canister filter and saw bacteria through out the sponges. i never used any seachem stability or similar products.

also, it doesnt always say this but throughout the website it mentions youtubers like gary from aquarium co-op and gives descriptions about the videos he watched. the anonymous author is active on the page so if you leave a comment he will respond in a day or two. everyone calls him dave, but it seems like its run by two people, so either the writer is named dave or the anonymous person, but theres no last name. with how everything is written it seems the anonymous person gives the writer information and the writer uploads it to the website.

i also looked into the fertilizers he recommends and all the ingredients are what are used in common seachem fertilizers and similar products, but in much higher concentrations and significantly cheaper. i also compared his claims about the flourish tabs only being good as a source of iron and honestly hes right. plants like dwarf Sagittarius and Sagittarius did amazing with these tabs, but any other plants like myrio or my java fern (the java narrow leaf seems to be doing ok but the other one with fatter leaves is losing leaves and getting holes) struggled and are slowly dieing with only these tablets (which is why i bought other fertilizers). the nutrition page on the package says ".8% nitrogen .11% phosphate, .28% potash, 23.3% calcium, .29% magnesium, 16.15% sulfur, .003% boron, .002% cobalt, .006% copper, 3.07% iron, .16% manganese, .0005% molybdenum, and .003% zinc. 2 bags of this was $50 on amazon. for a couple dollars more, i was able to get 5 pounds of urea (46% nitrogen), 5 pounds of potassium sulfate (potash), and half a pound of pure ammonium sulfate (nitrogen and sulfer) on amazon.com. this is many times more plant fertilizer than the two bags of seachem flourish tabs, and i expect it to last a whole lot longer. he does mention easy green from aquarium co-op and says it is a very good fertilizer but is still expensive. on the website it says 500 ml of easy green is $19.99 . he also shows the math he did concerning the concentration of seachems fertilizers to explain why he thinks its so expensive and ineffective

he also mentions research throughout the website about a variety of topics and even gives the names of these studies. these were the kinds of studies college students are required to use. i highly suggest looking into these journals. maybe it will change your mind.

someone commented recently to claim a couple things he had were wrong, and the author said he is open to the idea if the commenter can prove it. so maybe ask about how he did the seachem studies so you can repeat it and get confirmation?


----------



## mourip

Dirty dan said:


> i can contest your seachem claim. i had a tank with no biologocal filtration that had around 3 nitrites and 100 nitrates. i dumped an eighth of a bottle (about 12.5 fluid ounces) then immediately measured everything again and saw no change. i measured an hour later and saw no change. i dumped the rest of the bottle in there and a few days later there was still no change, so i just did a 90% water change then measured again and everything was close to zero. this was a 1.5 gallon tank. i asked the author for a recommendation for a canister filter and bought a sunsun HW-302. when it arrived i immediately set it up and removed the 20 gallon hang on back and 10 gallon hang on back filters from the 20 gallon tank. nitrites and nitrates went as high as my test kit could read (10 nitrite and 250 nitrate are the max and i used aqua care pro test strips and yes i have a lot of fish). about 2 weeks later everything was almost zero so i opened my canister filter and saw bacteria through out the sponges. i never used any seachem stability or similar products.
> 
> also, it doesnt always say this but throughout the website it mentions youtubers like gary from aquarium co-op and gives descriptions about the videos he watched. the anonymous author is active on the page so if you leave a comment he will respond in a day or two. everyone calls him dave, but it seems like its run by two people, so either the writer is named dave or the anonymous person, but theres no last name. with how everything is written it seems the anonymous person gives the writer information and the writer uploads it to the website.
> 
> i also looked into the fertilizers he recommends and all the ingredients are what are used in common seachem fertilizers and similar products, but in much higher concentrations and significantly cheaper. i also compared his claims about the flourish tabs only being good as a source of iron and honestly hes right. plants like dwarf Sagittarius and Sagittarius did amazing with these tabs, but any other plants like myrio or my java fern (the java narrow leaf seems to be doing ok but the other one with fatter leaves is losing leaves and getting holes) struggled and are slowly dieing with only these tablets (which is why i bought other fertilizers). the nutrition page on the package says ".8% nitrogen .11% phosphate, .28% potash, 23.3% calcium, .29% magnesium, 16.15% sulfur, .003% boron, .002% cobalt, .006% copper, 3.07% iron, .16% manganese, .0005% molybdenum, and .003% zinc. 2 bags of this was $50 on amazon. for a couple dollars more, i was able to get 5 pounds of urea (46% nitrogen), 5 pounds of potassium sulfate (potash), and half a pound of pure ammonium sulfate (nitrogen and sulfer) on amazon.com. this is many times more plant fertilizer than the two bags of seachem flourish tabs, and i expect it to last a whole lot longer. he does mention easy green from aquarium co-op and says it is a very good fertilizer but is still expensive. on the website it says 500 ml of easy green is $19.99. he also shows the math he did concerning the concentration of seachems fertilizers to explain why he thinks its so expensive and ineffective
> 
> he also mentions research throughout the website about a variety of topics and even gives the names of these studies. these were the kinds of studies college students are required to use. i highly suggest looking into these journals. maybe it will change your mind.
> 
> someone commented recently to claim a couple things he had were wrong, and the author said he is open to the idea if the commenter can prove it. so maybe ask about how he did the seachem studies so you can repeat it and get confirmation?


I use Prime and find it effective. I have not tried any Seachem ferts other than some K. I use AIO ferts from some other smaller vendors. I have not read the web site in question.

However... I do find it interesting that you joined 4 hours ago and your first post is to defend the site/person being discussed. Can you introduce yourself? That might help add credibility to your point of view.


----------



## somewhatshocked

mourip said:


> Can you introduce yourself?


They won't be able to because they're the same clown who continually spreads pseudoscience and other nonsense in relation to that particular site. They appear to be from the "do your research" crowd - the folks who yell that when they realize their internet quackery isn't exactly catching on.

Edit: This thread isn't permanently closed. Just temporarily to stave off the buffoonery and spam.


----------

