New Salt Mix Data?

[JakStat]

But you're sidestepping the point: do you ever really use fresh mixed water at 100% strength? I didn't think I had to specify that water changes dilute organics already present in conditioned systems, so your criteria do not apply to water changes. Do you regularly setup tanks and stock them with 100% of water mixed 72 hrs earlier? I setup one tank and then do partial changes.... do you ever change 100% of the water?

Or are you just busting my chops here?

Why in the world do you have such a bone to pick with Marineland? I understand the instructions - I just think that no one actually stocks a tank with 100% freshly mixed saltwater.

Randy's article on organics addresses their murky and poorly understood role.

[JakStat]

And just to set the record straight:

If you're flame-warring because I had a problem with your assertion that you wouldn't be surprised if there was falsified data in Hovanec's study then maybe you shouldn't make such harsh and unsubstantiated comments.

If I went to a scientific conference and a scientist from Company A gave a solid talk on some data, and I raised my hand and said "well I have no problem with your data, but you work for company A, so I wouldn't be surprised if you falsified it", I would rightfully be considered irrational, completely nuts. Every scientist works for someone. And almost all strive to remain faithful to the data when publishing results.

Whenever I comment on the data, or data interpretation, or the study design you come back with stories about improprieties by Ford, Merck, and assumed improprieties by Marineland, instead of addressing the data - which hasn't even been fully published!!!

Just give the data a chance to see the light of day before condemning it under your breath prematurely and unscientifically before it is even published.

[Ninong]

Originally posted by JakStat
And just to set the record straight:

If you're flame-warring because I had a problem with your assertion that you wouldn't be surprised if there was falsified data in Hovanec's study then maybe you shouldn't make such harsh and unsubstantiated comments.

That is a gross misrepresentation. I have never said anything about "falsified data." I corrected you on this previously. Back track a bit and you will find it. I specifically said that I was not questioning the data but merely pointing out that the design of any study might be influenced by the manufacturer's interests in promoting their products. I made no suggestions whatsoever about this particular salt mix study of Hovanec's because all three parts haven't even been published yet. I did express my opinion that his filtration study that showed that Marineland's BioWheel Filter was equal to, and in one instance superior to, so-called "natural methods" may have been designed with that result in mind.

Just give the data a chance to see the light of day before condemning it under your breath prematurely and unscientifically before it is even published.

It is obvious that your impression of what I have written is quite different than what I intended. For starters, I have never said anything about falsification of data and yet you have raised that repeatedly. My only point concerns the motivation behind studies published by a manufacturer's own research department. I guess the point is so self-evident that it wasn't worthwhile bringing up in the first place, but I did.

As far as using freshly mixed saltwater is concerned, I would NEVER recommend that. I agree with the advice given by Fossa & Nilsen in Volume One of their excellent series, The Modern Coral Reef Aquarium, that saltwater should be aged for a full week before using because it is much too harsh to use immediately. I sometimes wait a full week but I often cheat and use it after only three or four days. Aquarium Systems has long promoted the idea that using their saltwater one hour after mixing it is just fine. They even go further than that and say that it can be used immediately. They also recommend what in my opinion is an unnaturally low specific gravity for a reef tank (1.020 - 1.023). Since that recommendation is on the instructions for their premium, reef aquarium salt mix I am confident that it represents their official position. Their other more popular product, Instant Ocean, is recommended by them as being for fish-only marine tanks, NOT reef tanks. At least that's the way matters stand up until now. Who knows if that will change in the future.

[jfinch]

FWIW, I've always mixed my salt water up and used it within an hour, usually within 20 minutes. I mix it up very similar to the way Craig Bingman explains in this article: Bingman's Saltwater Mix Article. To me the main issue with artificial salt water is pH. They can mix up to very high or even low pH which I wouldn't add to a tank. But with very vigorous mixing (many many air bubbles) the saltwater will equilibrate with CO2 fairly quickly (5-10 minutes, easily ime). The only other issue I might see is that I'm not allowing the water to stand long enough for heavy metals to find a hydroxide molecule and precipitate. But, I've done this for years without any problems. Of course, ymmv.

What other harmful issues might be missing?

[Ninong]

Originally posted by jfinch
What other harmful issues might be missing?

I believe you have already touched upon the two main points: O2/CO2 equilibrium and waiting for the concentration of free metal ions in the newly mixed saltwater to be reduced. Fossa & Nilsen suggest that the water should be aged for a full week before being used, others recommend a much shorter waiting period.

Perhaps you could consider the manufacturer's recomendation to use ordinary dechlorinated tapwater as a potentially harmful issue but that's probably open to debate.

[JakStat]

Originally posted by Ninong
I have never said anything about "falsified data." I corrected you on this previously. Back track a bit and you will find it.

I apologize, jbertoni made that assertion, and my first post was directed at him.

My only point concerns the motivation behind studies published by a manufacturer's own research department. I guess the point is so self-evident that it wasn't worthwhile bringing up in the first place, but I did.[/QUOTE]

By questioning motivation you are questioning causality, and ultimately, the results. I still say wait for the data, then see if it can be repeated, before questioning.

[bertoni]

To JakStat,

I think you're getting a bit more emphatic about the whole issue than I was. If you're offended by my hypothetical examples, and looking back, I should have been a lot more clear about that, I'm sorry, but I don't think they're out of line at all. People do worse than that every day, much worse.

Questioning the objectivity of someone doing a study is fair game. As I've pointed out, that's part of the scientific process. As far as looking for an "informed opinion" or whatever term you used, I've been reading the thread. My lack of full understanding doesn't preclude me from stating my doubts.

So I think I've helped steer this thread in a bad direction, and I'm sorry about that, but I'm very skeptical about such corporate research. There are too many dead bodies for me to think otherwise.

[JakStat]

Originally posted by bertoni
To JakStat,

I think you're getting a bit more emphatic about the whole issue than I was. If you're offended by my hypothetical examples, and looking back, I should have been a lot more clear about that, I'm sorry, but I don't think they're out of line at all. People do worse than that every day, much worse.

Questioning the objectivity of someone doing a study is fair game. As I've pointed out, that's part of the scientific process. As far as looking for an "informed opinion" or whatever term you used, I've been reading the thread. My lack of full understanding doesn't preclude me from stating my doubts.

So I think I've helped steer this thread in a bad direction, and I'm sorry about that, but I'm very skeptical about such corporate research. There are too many dead bodies for me to think otherwise.

I understand your concern, but c'mon - innocent until proven guilty.

Also, there is a distinction between a company putting out data in a press release and a lone scientist putting it forth in a forum of peers, be it MACNA or whatever. I think the animosity toward any research by Marineland is unfairly directed de facto at a single scientist, whether anyone intends this to be the case or not. He will have to bear the ultimate scrutiny of his peers and ultimately judged in this way. Because of this I would assume he will make every attempt to make sure his research product is one he can stand behind.

Apparently, Ninong mentioned that Marineland has a track record of putting out questionable research, he mentioned that in earlier posts in this thread regarding filtration. I am not familiar with the actual data of this study, so perhaps I am the naive one here. More importantly, I don't know if Hovanec was the PI of these studies, and if he wasn't then I think the advance doubt and criticism is doubly unfair.

If I am being emphatic it is because I am offended as a scientist at the premature second-guessing of results, before they are even published. I am like you, in that I am not well versed in marine bio or chem, or the politics of this field. Again, maybe I'm out of line here if Marineland has a bad track record and I'm sticking up for a shystie operation.

That being said, I cannot emphasize enough that the motivation of a study has no bearing on the validity of results, and these can ultimately be either verified or disproved. The context has no bearing on whether a body of research can withstand the scrutiny of review.

[Ninong]

Originally posted by JakStat
Apparently, Ninong mentioned that Marineland has a track record of putting out questionable research, he mentioned that in earlier posts in this thread regarding filtration.

I don't believe I ever used the phrase "track record." I believe I said that I "questioned the design" of the filtration study published by Marineland.

I am not familiar with the actual data of this study, so perhaps I am the naive one here. More importantly, I don't know if Hovanec was the PI of these studies, and if he wasn't then I think the advance doubt and criticism is doubly unfair.

Yes, he was the PI. Here is the study: http://www.marineland.com/seascope/ss2003_issue2.pdf

The purpose of the study was to refute claims made by Delbeek & Sprung (1994), and others, that trickle filters are detrimental to reef aquaria.

Dr. Hovanec's conclusion was that they "are certainly not a detriment" and "may be an added plus."

My conclusion is that if you believe the study would have been published if the results affirmed the claims made by the "cognoscenti" of the reef aquarium world, then you are more trusting than most of the rest of us.

P.S. -- "Cognoscenti" was the opaque term used with a hint of sarcasm by the author of the study.

[bertoni]

Okay, we're getting back on track, I hope.

First of all, I consider myself a scientist, too. I did my PhD, and I have published a few papers, and a few patents.

I'm not quite willing to go to "innocent until proven guilty", but the fact that I'm reading the threads indicates I haven't said "guilty" yet.

You are correct that motivation per se has nothing to do with the study, but it certainly can influence a large number of factors that go into a study. Whether more impartial observers can take apart the study well enough to determine what truth there is, is an important question to me.

[WaterKeeper]

Holy Batcave Batman!!!!

Our beloved Jonny is shooting for a doctorate in gambling protocols ? Nest thing you know he'll be putting a graph up on some sort of statistical analysis of the distribution of sand grains in a DSB.

[bertoni]

If you mean me, I'm not sure I can even spell "stitisical" or "staticsal" or whatever any more. Sigh. I think it's inhaling the CaOH that does it...