[scubadude]

Sorry but its DUE time for a thread on ZEO products

Ok I spent about 3+hrs reading just the first half of it last nite (the RC thread below) and it perked my interest for me to finish it tonite. Im not really interested in talking about the legal consensus in this thread, but its findings and longterm affects that it would have as well as its cost (not to mention its imported from germany)
For those that dont know about ZEO products then check out their website @

www.zeovit.com

Most all ZEO users claim awesome results which definately gives credibility however one of their products being independently sampled is giving possibility to the fact that it does not have bacteria in it as it states it does.

Unless you really want to read ALOT of pages for one thread dont click this link (some kewl stuff in there though)

http://reefcentral.com/forums/showth...&highlight=zeo

Im quite uncertain as some others may possibly be if just confirming that Zeobac is a bacteria will it prove that it less likely to be long term negative effects than if it is not a bacteria?

[scubadude]

WOWZER...ok I just got finished with the thread...many emotions running through me now what an amazing read! who actually hit the post button before they read it all

Ok I will be truthfull I was at about pg 19 when I was ready to post and thankfully the thread was closed as I read another page or two I can see some thought (from others) close to where I was thinking and already posted

Some great input....Thanks Ninong for putting your 2 cents in there too....I thoroughly (sp?) enjoyed your sense of humor as well as your very well found opinion on it.

Great thread but geez my head hurts now

[Elmo18]

LOL , mine hurts, too now!

In my opinion (the short version), you can have a nice looking tank without having to use it

- Elmo

[Ninong]

Rocky, you clever devil you!

You started a Zeo thread over here on our little board and now all the Zeoheads will have to register so that they can tell you how great it is and then all their detractors will have to register so that they can tell them they're delusional.

[dougc]

In one of those monstrous threads, Boomer coyly hints that he knows what the zeolites are. In another thread, someone guesses that it is nothing more than a an iron-based phosphate remover. similar to Rowphos or Phosban and Boomer doesn't disagree.

Now, someone needs to go over to RC and start a "Hey, they're dissing Zeo over on reefland" thread. Reefland will need a new server then.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by dougc

In one of those monstrous threads, Boomer coyly hints that he knows what the zeolites are.

We all know what zeolites are.

Is it Boomer or Bomber, or both, who are coyly hinting???

In another thread, someone guesses that it is nothing more than a an iron-based phosphate remover. similar to Rowphos or Phosban and Boomer doesn't disagree.

This would be a reference to possible iron "contamination" in the particular zeolites chosen for this "method" if you are talking about hints from Bomber. At least that's what someone else said in the most recent thread about Bomber and Bomber himself did mention "iron" in this latest thread and I thought he was talking about the 2001 CombiSan analysis (which he was) but someone else said he was just using that to get his little dig about iron into this new thread. I guess we would have to read all of Bomber's comments in the earlier, extremely lengthy and tedious threads to figure out what his position really is.

Now, someone needs to go over to RC and start a "Hey, they're dissing Zeo over on reefland" thread. Reefland will need a new server then.

I sure hope not!

[Ninong]

In general, this is what zeolites are:

The zeolites are framework silicates consisting of interlocking tetrahedrons of SiO4 and AlO4. In order to be a zeolite the ratio (Si +Al)/O must equal 1/2. The alumino-silicate structure is negatively charged and attracts the positive cations that reside within. Unlike most other tectosilicates, zeolites have large vacant spaces or cages in their structures that allow space for large cations such as sodium, potassium, barium and calcium and even relatively large molecules and cation groups such as water, ammonia, carbonate ions and nitrate ions. In the more useful zeolites, the spaces are interconnected and form long wide channels of varying sizes depending on the mineral. These channels allow the easy movement of the resident ions and molecules into and out of the structure. Zeolites are characterized by their ability to lose and absorb water without damage to their crystal structures.

They tell you on that French website exactly which ones they are using that are suitable for saltwater filtration. I'm talking about the French distributor of the copycat German system from the other German guy, the one trying to rip off the first German guy's method.

P.S. -- Here is the French site.

They have a very detailed explanation of how they think the system works. Some of their statements are not technically accurate but that's rather irrelevant at this point since the people who have tried it and like it couldn't care less how it works.

I believe Bomber is of the opinion that the zeolite pores are too small for saltwater filtration. Which is probably why the manufacturer tells you that they have to be replaced every six weeks or so -- they probably "fill up" pretty fast. I haven't read the whole mess yet but are they talking about brand new zeolites every six weeks or just cleaning (recharging?) them and then returning to service???

[Ninong]

First off, don't lose sight of the fact that we are talking about two different versions of zeolite filtration here, the original Zeovit and the copycat version manufactured by another German and described on the French website. The only reason the French website entered into that last Reef Central thread (which is now locked) is because it contained a lengthy explanation of how the system is supposed to work. At first glance, the systems appear identical although there might be differences in the zeolites chosen and perhaps differences in the bacteria included in the bacterial component and possibly differences in the component supplied as food for the bacteria.

One of the "mysteries" surrounding the original product has been the nature of its effect on coloration in SPS corals. The only reason I use the word "mystery" here is because the original system seems clouded in secrecy with the inventor being very secretive about its ingredients and mechanisms. However, I did come across a statement on the French website that proposes a very simple explanation for the change in coloration that is both correct and incorrect at the same time:

"L'action des zeolites sur la coloration des coraux hermatypique est base sur la disparition des zooxanthelles qui faute de nutriment, font comme les autres algues de l'aquarium: elles disparaissent!!!

Translation into English: The action of zeolites on the coloring of the hermatypic corals is based on the disappearance of zooxanthellae which, for lack of nutrients, behave like the other algae in the aquarium: they disappear!!!

This is a stretch, not because the statement about zooxanthellate concentrations is incorrect, but because the cause is incorrect. One of the ways that hermatypic corals adapt to a lower light environment is by increasing the number and average size of zooxanthellae, as well as from an increase in chlorophyll concentration and an increase in the size of their photosynthetic units. They adapt the same way in an aquarium as they would in the wild. If we increase the intensity of the light, they reduce their population of zooxanthellae. Thus, the primary factor in the coloration of hermatypic corals is the intensity of the light and not the availability of nutrients in the water column. Zooxanthellae get their nutrients from the salts of phosphorus and nitrogen produced during heterotrophic metabolism in tissues of the polyp, as well as some nutrients directly absorbed by the corals from the water column, but those have to pass through the coral tissue first.

Comparing zooxanthellae to "the other algae in the aquarium" is a bad analogy. Zooxanthellae do not come and go in response to available nitrogen and phosphate as much as in response to available light. If a lack of nutrients in the water column were the dominant factor affecting the coloration of SPS corals, then we could expect to see uniform, intense coloration of a coral colony from top to bottom regardless of the intensity of the light. Obviously we all know that this statement is not true because we know what will happen to coloration if we drastically reduce the intensity of the illumination. And, unless you go nuts like Hilo Jack did, you will see that the lower branches of coral colonies do not have the same intensity of coloration as the upper branches that are exposed to more intense light. That's because the lower branches are partially shaded and adapt to their situation by producing more zooxanthellae.

Hilo Jack is the guy who's running 2390 watts (1x1000w MH, 3x400w MH & 2x95w VHO actinics) over a 54-gallon corner aquarium! Hilo Jack's lighting: http://ghchhilojack.homestead.com/Lighting.html

Pics of Hilo Jack's SPS: http://ghchhilojack.homestead.com/Acropora.html

Note that Hilo Jack's corals are VERY colorful. He uses VERY intense lighting but no zeolites.

Wayne Shang's corals are VERY colorful. He uses everything under the sun as far as equipment is concerned, but no zeolites (and no additives): http://www.underseadiscovery.com/home.htm


Disclaimer: I have no opinion on Zeovit or the copycat version one way or the other. If you like it, that's fine with me. If you don't like it, that's cool, too.

[Ninong]

Any method that results in a lowering of the nutrients in the aquarium is good. Some methods are just more complicated and more expensive than others.

[golfish]

I'm far from a Zeohead but I used to be a pothead, now I'm more like a butthead .
I've been using pot, I mean Zeovit for 3 months now. I was at the end of the list. I've had nothing but problems since I started my tank back in Jan 03. I just could get corals to grow or color up. Running Zeovit was second to last on the list of things to do, last being take the tank down and start with fresh rock. I did some work for a guy who sales Zeovit and I know a guy who builds a lot of the reactors used. It cost me nothing to get started so I had to try it. I couldn't tell ay anything about it but I can say it works. I'm still in the hit N miss stage of using it but I have brought lots of corals back from the dead. I got a tort frag from Shawn Bennet back in May. It did nothing for 5 months, in the last 3 months its tripled in size.

Guys, I'm not big on snake oils. As most of you know I had a very successful sps tank, without zeovit. Knowing what I know now, I would have used Zeovit in my old 150.

[dougc]

Sorry about the Boomer. I meant Bomber.

Much of the controversy (besides the cost) surrounds the losses of corals that some Zeo users have experienced when starting this regimen. What I got from reading Boomer's comments in several different threads was that the he theorizes that zeovit contains iron, which gets leached into the water. This, combined with an overdose of one of the other Zeo supplements (Zeostart, I think), acts as a fertilizer and can cause an overproduction of zooxanthellae, which the coral then may expel to avoid oxygen poisoning.

I just wonder if all the extras are really essential to the success achieved by some Zeo users. When the formulations are kept a mystery and all the evidence of success or failure is anecdotal, it is hard to sort out the facts. It is much like the EcoSystem controversy. What really provides the benefit, if there is one. Is it the refugium? The mud? The algae? There is difficult to empirically test this, mostly because there is no money to be made by performing such experiments.

Maybe these discussions will reveal something, maybe they won't. I'm all in favor of improved husbandry. It may be best, though, to wait for the dust to settle a bit on the Zeo thing. I hear it even took a while for sliced bread to catch on.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by golfish

It cost me nothing to get started so I had to try it. I couldn't tell ay anything about it but I can say it works.

Mark,

Are you using all of the associated additives that go along with it or just the zeolites in the reactor? How often are you supposed to change out the zeolites?

[scubadude]

Originally Posted by Ninong

Any method that results in a lowering of the nutrients in the aquarium is good. Some methods are just more complicated and more expensive than others.

Touche, but which is cheaper. 2390w over a 54g can be a costly endeavor, naturally I do understand this approach though. What would be REAL interesting would be to see what would happen if Hilo Jack/Wayne Shang did use zeo products and how it would affect their tanks. Of course if I was them I dunno if I would want to do something like that.

Originally Posted by golfish

I'm far from a Zeohead but I used to be a pothead, now I'm more like a butthead .
I've been using pot, I mean Zeovit for 3 months now.

LMAO Mark its funny/ironic you use this analogy. I have been browsing some of the ZEO threads and one that particularly caught my interest is where a ZEOuser was using it for a while then stopped and noticed a decline in his corals. Corals having withdraw symptoms ? Do you have before/after pics of your tank, possibly showing differences that we can get a visual on from the ZEO?

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by scubadude

Touche, but which is cheaper. 2390w over a 54g can be a costly endeavor, naturally I do understand this approach though.

Rocky,

I certainly don't recommend sticking 2390 watts of lighting over a 54-gal tank. That's just one of the websites that I have stored as an example of EXTREME lighting. I didn't mean that Hilo Jack's approach was less expensive than anything else in particular.

What I was getting at is that the zeolite approach seems to involve a lot of very expensive additives. That's why I asked Mark if he's using all of their products or just some of them.

Wayne Shang's new 718-gal reef system is very well equipped. The total cost is considerable because it's a large tank requiring larger, more expensive equipment. However, Wayne's system is more "natural" than most in that he relies on his two very large calcium reactors (2x42") and 10% water changes every six weeks to keep his "trace elements" in balance -- plus he's running a 3" deep sand bed on both his 718-gal reef tank and his 300-gal FOWLR tank. And he has never added iodine because he believes, as many others now do, that iodine is present already at normal levels because of the foods we feed our aquaria. As you probably know, iodine is still recommended as a necessary additive by many "hobby" authors but not by people like Dr. Ron Shimek or Dr. Randy Holmes-Farley and several others that I can think of. I can probably think of more of them that do recommend it because it always catches my attention -- especially their explanations of why they think it is necessary.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by scubadude

I have been browsing some of the ZEO threads and one that particularly caught my interest is where a ZEOuser was using it for a while then stopped and noticed a decline in his corals. Corals having withdraw symptoms ?

That's understandable considering the wide range of additives that are included in the total package. The other "problem" that is often reported is the result of people ramping up the "method" too quickly. (I don't know what else to call it and just about any word you choose will impart the wrong idea to somebody.) This is somewhat like what some have reported when they tried to stick a reactor filled with Rowaphos onto an existing system. The sudden drop in phosphate levels was a shock to their corals. Others who set up brand new mega-systems with Rowaphos from the beginning experienced no such problems.

Do you have before/after pics of your tank, possibly showing differences that we can get a visual on from the ZEO?

Before-and-after pictures are all over the net. That's the main selling point for the efficacy of the method: Pictures showing improved coloration and faster growth. The thing that seems in short supply is a clear explanation of exactly why each of the individual products is necessary and exactly how each of them works.

That French website did give a very lengthy, detailed explanation of how they think the copycat zeolite system works. What it all boils down to, according to them, is a reduction in nutrients -- see my quotation earlier in this thread. Obviously the reduction in nutrients would have to be accompanied by strong lighting and strong water current.

I haven't really read any of the earlier Zeovit threads on Reef Central but are they claiming unnatural coloration or just better natural coloration? As long as they aren't claiming anything unnatural, then I don't see why the same results can't be achieved by more conventional methods: Extremely efficient protein skimmer, intense lighting, very strong water movement, excellent water quality, etc. The growth patterns in Wayne Shang's tank are quite natural, yet robust, and his corals are certainly colorful.

If the Zeovit people are simply saying that their method is another method to achieve good coloration and growth in corals, and nothing more, then the debate turns to why and how it works. Then questions such as exactly why it is necessary to continually add innoculations of new bacteria to an existing system come into play. On the French website, they seem to be saying that the use of their special bacterial food allows for an increase in the beneficial bacterial populations and that new additions of bacteria are needed every time you change the zeolites. My question would be why do you need to add new bacteria just because you added new zeolites since the already existing bacteria (they tell you to retain 5% of the old zeolites to reseed the new zeolites) will increase their populations exponentially within a matter of hours to compensate for the population decline resulting from the removal of 95% of the zeolites. This would seem to indicate that they believe it is necessary to add their expensive products to avoid any fluctuation in bacterial populations during the switch. Either that or they just want to maximize profit potential.

Anyway, the bottom line in my opinion, is that it's a rather expensive approach. If they are claiming unnatural results, then it's unique. If they're claiming natural results, then they can probably be duplicated with less complicated methods.

[scubadude]

This could really change our hobby one way or the other. I mean if its unnatural and the hobbyist that cant afford the stuff will possibly buy these killer looking corals that could be farmed by propagators that can afford it then when the frags are sold to the end buyer they put the frags in a Non Zeo system then they could see the demise of their corals as the withdraw that I mentioned above. If it is found out to be a natural way then it is ground breaking news IMO and we still may have the same problem just not as bad.....Kind of like sticking to one salt when the salt thing became a controversy. We will need a test that we can take to frag auctions just to test for ZEO's before we buy the frag

If you dont mind im gonna borrow your disclaimer that I really believe in now Ninong

Disclaimer: I have no opinion on Zeovit or the copycat version one way or the other. If you like it, that's fine with me. If you don't like it, that's cool, too.

[LazyReef]

I believe that your description of light and zooxanthellae densities is correct. I would like pose an adittional thought. Maybe the zeo removes ammonia and ammonium as they state, and it is this source of nitrogen that the symbiotic algae need to increase (light being a constant in our tanks. i.e. we don't increase or decrease the light).

Is there also a sybiosis between fish and coral heads? Any diver, or in pictures can provide a image of thriving coral head with tons of small fish living around it. When you dive close, all the fish zip into the coral head, receiving protection.

On the other The coral benefits from the simple nitrogens excreted from these fish.

This is also a theory on why some Deep Sand Bed Tanks do so well. They are producing simple nitrogens to help the zooxanthellae populations that allow the coral to grow faster.

I wonder if you could bleach your corals by keeping the ammonia removing zeolite in your system for a long time?

I think maybe the zeo system produces light and redarking due to ammonia removal. Nice marketing though.

[golfish]

Originally Posted by Ninong

Mark,

Are you using all of the associated additives that go along with it or just the zeolites in the reactor? How often are you supposed to change out the zeolites?

George,
I use Start, Bak, Food, Ammino Acids and the Potassium Iodide. I changed my first media out at 8 weeks.


Oh, and I run about a Liter of carbon 24/7 and change that out once a month.

[golfish]

Originally Posted by scubadude

Do you have before/after pics of your tank, possibly showing differences that we can get a visual on from the ZEO?

Rocky, Your just going to have to take my word on it My corals looked so bad that its was never worth taking pictures. Even now they aren't all that great.

Let me say a couple things about the cost. Just about anyone can build a reactor for 20.00, even then a nylon bags works just as good if its in a high flow area.. The other stuff you'll need to get started is going to cost you about 100.00 plus, depending. The small 20.00 Bak bottles will last only 3 months. A Liter of media (100 gal tank) is 20.00 and can last anywhere from 4-12 weeks depending on your system. The smallest bottle of "Start" looks like its going to last me at least one year, same with the smallest "Food" bottle (20.00). I also use the smallest bottles of Ammino Acid and Potassium Iodide (not need to start Zeovit) These will all last well over a year.

I really don't see the cost as a big deal..

[Ninong]

Rocky,

I didn't mean "unnatural" in the way that you think I meant. I didn't mean to imply that the corals themselves were unnatural after being grown in a Zeovit system, only that IF the Zeovit manufacturer is claiming that his "method" is unnatural, then it would be unique and not subject to replication through other methods. That, however, is NOT what I suspect.

I suspect that his method is just another way to achieve the same end results that could be achieved with more traditional methods if applied with extreme care in a spare-no-expense system. Obviously most of the Zeovit users will not agree with that statement.

However, just think of all the really spectacular tanks that we both know of that have been around since way before Zeovit hit the scene. I have a video of Wayne Shang's old 300-gal reef tank, part of which was shot several years ago, and it was just as spectacular then as the new 718-gal reef is now. You can't get any better coloration or more natural growth than that. His tanks have been photographed for more than 10 years now. Besides all of his very high quality equipment, he's also running his reef tank with many Tridacna clams and a DSB. His water quality is so good that he deliberately uses only old water from his FOWLR system for water changes on his reef system in order to put in extra nutrients for his clams. Every six weeks he does about a 70-gallon water change on the FOWLR tank and then he uses the water that he removed from that tank for his reef tank.

Yeah, you can use my disclaimer. Help yourself.

I stuck that on there because I was afraid we would be getting some of the people from RC over here and I don't feel like debating something that I haven't really researched very much.