Marine Depot Forums / TEAM Marine Depot / Corals and Coral Reefs - by Eric Borneman / Mistake in newest reefkeeping article? / Latest Posts

RE: Mistake in newest reefkeeping article?

Eric Borneman — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 17:54:10 GMT

I forgot to comment on that...sodium thiosulfate is a potent oxygen scavenger and chelates calcium, so care is warranted even though it is a standard for dechlorination.

RE: Mistake in newest reefkeeping article?

reverendmaynard — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 17:24:05 GMT

Where does one get "simple sodium thiosulfate"?

RE: Mistake in newest reefkeeping article?

Eric Borneman — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 06:33:13 GMT

I use fresh pieces of aloe vera from my garden when I burn myself on something. I also have aloe vera in many of my hair/skin products but I am not assured in any way that their incorporation does anything. In fish tanks.....as far as I know as mentioned are completely unsubstantiated. No reason I can think of that it would increase a slime coat since they are produced by mucosecretory cells of the epidermis and I am not sure there is evidence that consumption of, rubbing onto, or bathing in aloe vera, even 100% aloe vera, increases mucus production (though I have not done a literature search) - and if it does, maybe by stress? - and is there evidence that the mucuseretory cells are not functioning optimally in the fish in the first place? Mucus secretion should be more or less "on demand" in vertebrates and many invertebrates. For example, we produce more mucus in our upper respiratory tract when there are irritating particles present, but slow down mucus production if there aren't. Sometimes, pathogens affect mucus production. But, vitz is right, and I see no logical reason it should affect or "maintain" mucus coats of fish or anything else in a beneficial way even in theory, except it is probably attractive as a marketing tool since both mucus and aloe are "slimy"

RE: Mistake in newest reefkeeping article?

vitz — Mon, 10 Jul 2006 15:09:59 GMT

at best, those slime coat kaka products will coat a fish for a few hours at best-the fish will begin to push it off the skin almost immediately, and NO ONE has yet shown for there to be any benefit or positive effect (no study has even been done to prove that the slime additive even sticks to the fish's skin to begin with, hehe).

they do a great job of breaking down into phosphates and other related organic waste compounds though.

the only conditioner needed for tap water, salt water that should be used is rodi and if something HAS to be used for a 'typical' FW change, simple sodium thiosulfate will do, for chlorine rmoval.

RE: Mistake in newest reefkeeping article?

MandM — Mon, 10 Jul 2006 14:04:55 GMT

I'm not a fan of using aloe vera, garlic or any other land veggies in my marine tank. It's amazing how people will pay insane prices for stuff with no proven benefit or even list of ingredients. It gets my 24 strands of DNA all activated! I'm an Indigo, ya know.

RE: Mistake in newest reefkeeping article?

TosT — Mon, 10 Jul 2006 07:38:02 GMT

Not in my house.

BTW, talking about aquarium products, what do you all think about the claim that aloe vera (often in water conditioners) helps restore fish's "slime" coat and heal damaged tissue?

http://www.aquatichouse.com/Water%20Conditioners/StressCoat.asp
http://freepatentsonline.com/4500510.html

RE: Mistake in newest reefkeeping article?

MandM — Sun, 09 Jul 2006 21:53:33 GMT

At least they're not selling their water to reefers. A Google search on 12 strand DNA healing is quite enlightening.
I wonder how long before we see new-age aquariums with little pyramids and crystals in them.

RE: Mistake in newest reefkeeping article?

TosT — Sun, 09 Jul 2006 19:09:30 GMT

Wow, my Bio book must be really outdated.

RE: Mistake in newest reefkeeping article?

MandM — Sun, 09 Jul 2006 17:11:26 GMT

Great article Eric,
I am amazed at the claims made for some products in our hobby. The "food supplements" trade is really rich in material like that too. I saved an old letter I got, not sure quite how I got on their mailing list but it made me laugh until I choked.

Eric, have you evolved to a 12-strand DNA yet?

This is some of the wonder water they sell:
http://www.gematria.com/products_display.asp?cat_id=17

RE: Mistake in newest reefkeeping article?

Eric Borneman — Thu, 06 Jul 2006 19:02:28 GMT

LOL -I do it, too. They say that mild dyslexia is a sign of genius

RE: Mistake in newest reefkeeping article?

Graveyardworm — Thu, 06 Jul 2006 18:06:38 GMT

Sorry my dyslexia mustve been acting up or something. I read that atleast 4 or 5 times and read it as "It is" every time.

RE: Mistake in newest reefkeeping article?

bgreenlee — Thu, 06 Jul 2006 12:38:34 GMT

Fixed the link, I had left the "http" in from when I added the link. Sorry about that.

RE: Mistake in newest reefkeeping article?

CTReefer — Thu, 06 Jul 2006 09:11:29 GMT

Nope it's not you. I can't link to it either. I ever tried copying the link & pasting it & it still doesn't work.

RE: Mistake in newest reefkeeping article?

Eric Borneman — Thu, 06 Jul 2006 07:19:54 GMT

The puffery link isn't working....site down or wrong address or is it me?

RE: Mistake in newest reefkeeping article?

Eric Borneman — Thu, 06 Jul 2006 07:18:36 GMT

Thanks for the link and the complements. I will look at it asap. Unfortunately it will have to wait till I get back from Puerto Rico but I have earmarked the page.

RE: Mistake in newest reefkeeping article?

bgreenlee — Wed, 05 Jul 2006 19:41:39 GMT

Eric

I really enjoyed the article in Reefkeeping this month. If you look closely in industries you will find this sort of advertising in more then just this hobby. For instance take a look at the sport supplement industry, for example go to this website http://http://www.gnc.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2133642&cp=2167077.2168524.2169542&parentPage=family at the bottom of the product description you will find this statement:

" These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease."

This is a product we choose to put in ourselves based solely on what is termed legally as puffery. We make these decision because of marketing ploys and tactics which convince us that these things will give you excellent results with little effort on your own part.

Truthfully, I think our own laziness is as much to blame as anything when you look at some of the products in this and other industries. Who doesn't like the idea of getting a huge gain from little investment, be it a get rich quick scheme, a "loose weight and eat what you want diet", or a "A Breakthrough for Hobbyists. No More Guessing. No Protein Skimmer Required......". Again, I have to point to our own laziness and lack of husbandry, be it the husbandry of our own bodies, our finances, or our aquariums. In general people want a greater result then the effort they put forward.

If you are interested in the legality and definition of puffery, here is a good place to start. http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=228& Also, Google "UCC puffery" and see what you get. There is a lot of information there that really explains how companies get by with it.

Billy

RE: Mistake in newest reefkeeping article?

Eric Borneman — Tue, 04 Jul 2006 20:44:07 GMT

Wow - didn't even know that issue was up yet.

HW- exactly right, but I'm more than impressed at the knowledge of grammatical terminology. Now the question is, how do YOU know the term for that??!!

RE: Mistake in newest reefkeeping article?

HWCOZ — Tue, 04 Jul 2006 17:40:36 GMT

Asking "is it not time" pretty much means "is it now time". Eric was showing his literary eloquence by using the subjunctive interrogative. (Please excuse the Dave Barry reference.)

Mistake in newest reefkeeping article?

Graveyardworm — Tue, 04 Jul 2006 10:00:42 GMT

Found this in the conclusion.

Is it not time for all of us to become skeptical aquarists and use the true knowledge we have gained and shared with each other, rather than buying into the product descriptions of marketed products with no proof of their claims?

did you mean It is now time, rather than "It is not time"?

I love reading old ads as well every so often when doing demolition work I come across old newspapers and magazines, amazing to see what was out there back in the day.