Protein Skimmer - Page 5

pledosophy · 07/27/2006, 03:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RichConley
and there are a lot of incorrect scientific assumptions going on there.

Please site anything published by the org, not stated by some member that reflects this statement.

pledosophy · 07/27/2006, 03:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RichConley

Read through them, and look for innacuracies. There are TONS. At one point Seahorse.org repeatedly reccomend that gaskets for bulkheads should be put on the same side as the nut. THAT IS WRONG, and every newbie who tries it is going to have water on the floor.

This is a false statement.

Please provide a link.

pledosophy · 07/27/2006, 03:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RichConley

Its like a newspaper with frequent spelling mistakes. If they can't catch that, what makes you think theyre checking their research.

Good Point,

Please provide a link to the spelling mistakes in the published seahorse.org articles.

Throughout this thread you hae still not learned to spell protein, but are claiming to be an expert. Why?

pledosophy · 07/27/2006, 03:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RichConley
You guys seem to think that CO2 levels are raised by a skimmer. I have a hard time believing that this is true.

Based on what?

Please provide a link that backs your statements.

pledosophy · 07/27/2006, 03:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RichConley
If CO2 is the issue, skimmers should HELP

Research has shown this to be false. Please provide a link backing your statements.

pledosophy · 07/27/2006, 03:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by FishGrrl

Anyway, I had six aquariums respond with experience with GBD. In no case was a skimmer implicated in the cause of gas bubble disease.

What aquariums were these?

What year was this?

Where they using HOB protein skimmers? None of the aquariums i have been in contact with in the U.S. or Europe are currently using HOB protein skimmers on seahorse tanks. Not saying there is not one doing it, but it is not common practice. Infact many Euorpean public aquariums removed there protein skimmers after bouts with GBD.

pledosophy · 07/27/2006, 03:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by FishGrrl

since many do not have adequite alternative nutrient export systems. With waste producers like seahorses, small water changes are not going to keep up with the waste being produced.

There are many alternatives. This statement is untrue. You do not need water changes to regulate the nitrogen cycle.

pledosophy · 07/27/2006, 03:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RichConley
Theres entirely too many anecdotes being passed off as fact. I would hazard to say, that on most tanks without skimmers, a skimmer would improve the health of the seahorses.

This is untrue and kind of ironic you can't get through a paragraph with out contradicting yourself.

Please post link to back up your claim.

pledosophy · 07/27/2006, 03:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RichConley
myco WILL indeed cause swelling and bloating in seahorses. I've seen myco infected horses, and they do swell.

The symptoms for myco and GBD are not similiar. I have never seen a case where an experienced keeper has mixed up the two ailments.

pledosophy · 07/27/2006, 03:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RichConley

The fact that a drug that deals with fluid secretion seems to help makes me think it has NOTHING to do with gas, or anything along those lines, and more along the lines of just being a general stress response...

Please back up this statement with some link to a fact.

pledosophy · 07/27/2006, 03:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by FishGrrl
A great example right now is I have a few cb erectus in a 10 gallon quarantine tank. I've been feeding heavily; and not keeping up with water changes, using the excuse that "they're tough". I saw this morning that the male has pouch bloat. I don't have a skimmer on the tank; but I strongly suspect a skimmer would have prevented it.

This is just a great example of poor husbandry. What makes you think a skimmer would have prevented anything?

It is possible it was one of several of the other triggers previously mentioned. They would be fitting in this circumstance as well.

TamiW · 07/27/2006, 03:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by pledosophy
Post after post Fish Grrrrl has stated the the nature of my research is unscientific without understanding the definition of the word research or theory. Now after blasting my collection methods for weeks claiming they are unscientific (even though they are being run by a team of scientists who are published on syngnathid disease, are internationally recognized, and have been guest speakers on syngnathid at several different venues, and were never stated or quoted as scientific research) she has decided to start a biased and useless poll to defend her "idea's". This poll she has started is completely bias in a way in which she accused another survey of being, even though the other survey and her accusations have nothing in common.

Hi Kevin.

Glad you could (re) join us after I was attempting to take suggestions for how to make the poll more accurate, rather than before. I agree the paraphrasing "protein skimmer" to skimmer was a mistake, and oversight on my part. But generally, I like how instead of being constructive, as you'd blamed Rich and myself to lack being, you're just going to take the time to criticize AFTER its posted.

I also didn't know I was blasting your methods, per say. I thought you said that the GBD study was set up by seahorse.org, not yourself.

And what don't my "accusations" have in common with the survey? I believe my complaints involve the lack of a survey regarding the general population so no sense of the percentages of protein skimmer on non-gbd aquariums, therefore no way to guage how much the population of gbd aquariums deviates from the norm. Are you saying this in no way relates to the survey, that its outright false?

Or is it that I do not think any survey, but especially a flawed one should be given that much credence without experimental data to back it up. Are you suggesting there is actual replicated experiemental data that I'm missing regarding the sh.org gbd survey?

Bah, I'm too tired to post anymore. Its probably not worth it anyway since I smell a sock puppet.

pledosophy · 07/27/2006, 03:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by FishGrrl
pledosophy, that is me!

The problem I have with the skimmer theory is that it goes back to early literature where air stone bubbles were blamed for air in the pouch. It was pretty apparent to me that this was people observing bubbles in the tank, and assuming that was where the bubbles in the pouch came from. When air stones became more and more rare, people started looking at the next source of bubbles; skimmers.

This is untrue and a misunderstanding on your part.

pledosophy · 07/27/2006, 03:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RichConley

As to coming on this board and posting oppinions: You are posting your oppinion with no evidence to back it up. All of your survey is CRAP.

Did you miss the multiple survey's, the research paper, the explanation identifying the enzyme, the input from PHD amrine biologists?

Funny how you hae not backed up any of your claims. Easier to point the finger then do the work.

TamiW · 07/27/2006, 03:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by pledosophy
This is just a great example of poor husbandry. What makes you think a skimmer would have prevented anything?

It is possible it was one of several of the other triggers previously mentioned. They would be fitting in this circumstance as well.

This is exactly my point. There are too many other factors to say OMG PROTEIN SKIMMER!

On that note, the whole idea that a seahorse can be "predisposed" to gas bubble disease? I keep reading that and all I see are excuses for variances in data that can't be explained away. So instead there is this imaginary "predisposed" condition that accounts for data that would otherwise make the presented hypothesis false. Is it possible? Sure, is there any evidence other than wild guess work? I don't think so. When there is variances in data like that one should be looking in flaws with their methodology, not looking for excuses to continue to support that data.

pledosophy · 07/27/2006, 03:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by FishGrrl
but it seems that there is too much focus on trying to prove skimmers are the cause rather than unbiasedly searching for the cause.

If you took the time to read the links I have posted you would see this is also false.

The GBD was designed to look for multiple triggers. Your survey is the only one that is trying to pinpoint it to protein skimmers.

pledosophy · 07/27/2006, 04:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RichConley
You're supposed to try to disprove your theory, not prove it.

No part of the research to date has been bais in either direction, which IMO is how it supposed to be.

pledosophy · 07/27/2006, 04:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by FishGrrl

Furthermore, you have to take into account that the skimmers are evil mantra at seahorse.org prevents unbiased discussion.

This is false. There is no evil mantra that exists,sorry to disappoint.

pledosophy · 07/27/2006, 04:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by FishGrrl
I know that I was alienated after vehemently disagreeing with the research methods being used and suggesting we try to work with outside sources, not drive them away (aquariums, other seahorse related communities).

I agree you lost some friends but this statement makes it seem like your position on protein skimmers and research had something to do with it, which it did not IMO. You can blame whatever you like.

Seahorse.org does work with several other seahorse communities, universities, syngnathid breeders, and public aquariums. I do not understand why you are implying otherwise.

pledosophy · 07/27/2006, 04:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RichConley

95% SKimmer use, only 85% of cases had a skimmer, thats a pretty serious correlation. 5% of the tanks are accounting for 15% of the cases. That makes tanks without skimmers almost four times as likely to have GBD.

Please provide a link to your numbers and polls. Making up numbers to support your statements is not helpful to anyone. What if someone believed you.

pledosophy · 07/27/2006, 04:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RichConley
only 85% of cases had a skimmer

Again where do you get this number? Is it from the same place you got 95% of seahorse keepers protein skimmers?

If your going to refernce the data I post, please pay more attention and be accurate.

pledosophy · 07/27/2006, 04:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RichConley

I just polled everyone I know who owns seahorses in my local club. We have 95% skimmer use. That provides a correlation that skimmers actually reduce occurance of GBD.

If your not making it up post a link. We've been waiting quite awhile now.

pledosophy · 07/27/2006, 04:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RichConley

pledosophy, you're coming to conclusions that the data you have doesnt support.

I disagree. Please post some links to your data so we can all see what it supports.

pledosophy · 07/27/2006, 04:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by FishGrrl

Kevin, I know you mean well, but its these mistakes in the process and others like it that make it so difficult to take seriously. The methods are flawed because the people involved don't seem to understand the process involved with coming up with a solid, scientifically based theory.

Go to the post regarding your "survey" read that them come back and read this again.

pledosophy · 07/27/2006, 04:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by FishGrrl
This isn't someone being pedantic about semantics, but a clearly defined process that has worked for hundreds of years to weed out invalid data.

You don't even know what the word theory means. Lookup the word theory, pedantic, and semantics, then come back and tell me this statement is true.