Bolus dosing

[Garf]

Anyone else find it odd that Fauna have lumped Lanthanum in with carbon dosing, as in something to be dosed when the pH is high? There is a post somewhere recently on here that suggest the pH at the gill membrane can drop low enough to liberate the Lanthanum, causing issues. I expect this would be made worse if the bulk water pH was also low. No idea if that's true but sounds reasonable. Marc Levenson keeps suggesting raising Alk when dosing Lanthanum. I'm curious if Fauna have found a correlation during german trials, or if its just another story. Could be important, could be fluff.

 

[BeanAnimal]

I have not read that, but my experience with Lanthanum Chloride was that lanthanum precipitation happened or collected on tang (especially zebrasoma) gill plates, causing severe damage long before other fish showed any signs of stress or injury.

 

[Mo.]

Is the vid on your build thread upto date? If so, is the photosynthesis of benthic communities likely responsible, not the Bolus?

Given my observations with the changing of delivery systems back and forth kalk, balling light, and bolus. vs how the system has been stocked and populated. Bolus definitely has an effect on pH that is separate to lighting and photosynthesis, in my opinion.

 

[Hats_]

Given my observations with the changing of delivery systems back and forth kalk, balling light, and bolus. vs how the system has been stocked and populated. Bolus definitely has an effect on pH that is separate to lighting and photosynthesis, in my opinion.

How high of an effect are we talking, and how are you this sure about that. There are so many factors that have a slight effect on our tanks pH. Even the cat staying inside for the day instead of going out has a slight effect on the pH of the tank. I just feel like you can't say this with certainty...

 

[Mo.]

How high of an effect are we talking, and how are you this sure about that. There are so many factors that have a slight effect on our tanks pH. Even the cat staying inside for the day instead of going out has a slight effect on the pH of the tank. I just feel like you can't say this with certainty...

I’ve been stocking the system for the last year and changing the dosing systems and lighting etc.

You’d have thought, maybe with my experience and background, I’d have some kind of idea about what is being observed and measured in the tank, especially given the temporal reactions to changes I have already mentioned.

I’m not about to do a science experiment, but temporal and spatial relationships to observations, can also have some validity.

After all, I’m not aware of any other system having had published scientific peer review before being marketed. So in this hobby, this thread is probably about as much scrutiny in any given system, we’re going to get and my opinion remains that having not done the light boost and made observations between kalk, balling light and bolus that bolus has a temporal impact on pH.

 

[BeanAnimal]

After all, I’m not aware of any other system having had published scientific peer review before being marketed. So in this hobby, this thread is probably about as much scrutiny in any given system, we’re going to get and my opinion remains that having not done the light boost and made observations between kalk, balling light and bolus that bolus has a temporal impact on pH.

You are (again) purposefully attempting to give FM cover and at the same time trying to appear as just an "observer" by ignoring or twisting context.

The reason for the scrutiny and demands for "peer review" are because FM, Doug and Claude are publishing what amounts to "hard science" that has not been reviewed. The both have gone on a global podcast tour to promote this science and the FM product. When taken as a whole, there are numerous intertwined claims and concepts being used to build a "body" of science -- most (or all) of it on a very shaky (if not an absolutely impossible) foundation. We are well past a company with a half true bullet point on a box or embellished talking point. So the scrutiny is warranted.

Adding fancy sounding words like "temporal" and "spatial" only serves to muddy the conversation. Come on Mo. stop trying so hard to reframe this debate and give FM cover. Your observations are fine, but they are just that, your observations.

 

[Hats_]

I’ve been stocking the system for the last year and changing the dosing systems and lighting etc.

You’d have thought, maybe with my experience and background, I’d have some kind of idea about what is being observed and measured in the tank, especially given the temporal reactions to changes I have already mentioned.

I’m not about to do a science experiment, but temporal and spatial relationships to observations, can also have some validity.

After all, I’m not aware of any other system having had published scientific peer review before being marketed. So in this hobby, this thread is probably about as much scrutiny in any given system, we’re going to get and my opinion remains that having not done the light boost and made observations between kalk, balling light and bolus that bolus has a temporal impact on pH.

Theres no problem with having differing opinions but what your saying is your opinion makes no sense as an opinion. You are stating an observation that is contrary to the knowledge we have about bicarbonate, so is it so weird that people doubt what you are saying and ask you how you came to that conclusion and try to find out what may be creating the pH effect?

 

[Garf]

I’ve been stocking the system for the last year and changing the dosing systems and lighting etc.

You’d have thought, maybe with my experience and background, I’d have some kind of idea about what is being observed and measured in the tank, especially given the temporal reactions to changes I have already mentioned.

I’m not about to do a science experiment, but temporal and spatial relationships to observations, can also have some validity.

After all, I’m not aware of any other system having had published scientific peer review before being marketed. So in this hobby, this thread is probably about as much scrutiny in any given system, we’re going to get and my opinion remains that having not done the light boost and made observations between kalk, balling light and bolus that bolus has a temporal impact on pH.

I'm sure you are seeing something and was willing to accept your impartiality as real evidence. Then today, I find out you know Doug personally, buy stuff off him, and to top it off are claiming responsibility for the term "Bolus" in this method. I'm very disappointed. Would you like me to provide a link?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Anyone else find it odd that Fauna have lumped Lanthanum in with carbon dosing, as in something to be dosed when the pH is high? There is a post somewhere recently on here that suggest the pH at the gill membrane can drop low enough to liberate the Lanthanum, causing issues. I expect this would be made worse if the bulk water pH was also low. No idea if that's true but sounds reasonable. Marc Levenson keeps suggesting raising Alk when dosing Lanthanum. I'm curious if Fauna have found a correlation during german trials, or if its just another story. Could be important, could be fluff.

I've not seen that claim.

The mere precipitation of phosphate with lanthanum would cause a very tiny pH lowering, by removing PO4---, and causing a redistribution of the remaining phosphate among the various H2PO4-, HPO4--, and PO4---, with consequent release of H+.

That said, lanthanum products may bind other things (such as carbonate) and may have acidic impurities in it.

 

[Mo.]

You are (again) purposefully attempting to give FM cover and at the same time trying to appear as just an "observer" by ignoring or twisting context.

The reason for the scrutiny and demands for "peer review" are because FM, Doug and Claude are publishing what amounts to "hard science" that has not been reviewed. The both have gone on a global podcast tour to promote this science and the FM product. When taken as a whole, there are numerous intertwined claims and concepts being used to build a "body" of science -- most (or all) of it on a very shaky (if not an absolutely impossible) foundation. We are well past a company with a half true bullet point on a box or embellished talking point. So the scrutiny is warranted.

Adding fancy sounding words like "temporal" and "spatial" only serves to muddy the conversation. Come on Mo. stop trying so hard to reframe this debate and give FM cover. Your observations are fine, but they are just that, your observations.

Bean- you’re starting to become like a repetitive skipping vinyl record.

I was asked several direct and legitimate questions about my tanks pH responses and I gave direct answers about my observations and my tank’s evolution. Beyond that I have made a factual statement about this being a hobby with many dosing systems that aren’t scrutinised to this degree. I didn’t ask say whether it was right or wrong,

I didn’t ask for your input (or lack of!!) either. You don’t seem to do anything in this thread except attack Claude, Doug and FM.

What exactly is your problem with them? it seems more than personal at this point, if that is even possible!!

If you don’t understand some terminology, I am happy to explain. Just ask. No point you will have googled it by now anyway!

Otherwise- have a nice day!

 

[Mo.]

I'm sure you are seeing something and was willing to accept your impartiality as real evidence. Then today, I find out you know Doug personally, buy stuff off him, and to top it off are claiming responsibility for the term "Bolus" in this method. I'm very disappointed. Would you like me to provide a link?

I have always said I know Doug. That is my source of info for bolus. That has never been a secret. I also know Claude. He helped me buy equipment for my first tank and put me in touch with Alex Grah from Abyzz.

It’s mentioned at the very start of my postings last year as well.

It’s why I know how bolus originated in terms of the sequence and the light schedule changes being added later.

I know a lot of people in reefing. Ehsan from Triton came to my house to see my last tank and I had very long conversations with him about ICP and Lani LED lights.

I’ve spoken many times to Thomas Pohl. In fact he tested flatworm stop on my tank.

I ran Aquaforest for years on my old tank.

I know Oliver from ATI, yet I use Radions.

How does it stop me being impartial?

If I was paid or given free product by Doug or Claude, you might have some reason to be disappointed.

Quoting me from the reefers network interview where I told them all
This has no relevance to my stance.

Me mentioning to Doug during a conversation a couple of years ago about what a bolus is doesn’t mean I’m suddenly in FM’s pocket.

Good try, but no cigar…..

Btw. Me using bolus now, doesn’t mean I won’t be using Aquaforest or Modern Reef or Nyos next.Ive been approached many times, but as we speak I’m not tied to anyone!

 

[Featherweight]

This thread is fascinating. are we really pretending that the FM Data is science? I listened to claude on the beyond the reef pod and thought its lucky for him he has that accent to help w credibility, because his style is that of a snake oil salesman. Actual chemists seem to take a lot of issue with the claims being made about bolus chemistry. id say all of the scrutiny is appropriate Given i can find gaps with my limited chemistry knowledge

 

[twentyleagues]

This thread is fascinating. are we really pretending that the FM Data is science? I listened to claude on the beyond the reef pod and thought its lucky for him he has that accent to help w credibility, because his style is that of a snake oil salesman. Actual chemists seem to take a lot of issue with the claims being made about bolus chemistry. id say all of the scrutiny is appropriate Given i can find gaps with my limited chemistry knowledge

It really is isn't it. They (fm bolus users) cant/wont explain what or how what they are seeing happens. It seems to defy actual scientific explanation. Its like believing in God you do or dont but there is no proof either way of its existence its just faith. Some parts of known science changes when new theories are brought forward and old theories are proven or disproven. I dont think this is typically true with chemistry though as it seems pretty cut and dry x=a+b/c . Maybe we are seeing a first! Maybe it has to do with some information that has been withheld on their part? I dont know but I cant wait for the next installment/episode!

 

[Mo.]

You are (again) purposefully attempting to give FM cover and at the same time trying to appear as just an "observer" by ignoring or twisting context.

The reason for the scrutiny and demands for "peer review" are because FM, Doug and Claude are publishing what amounts to "hard science" that has not been reviewed. The both have gone on a global podcast tour to promote this science and the FM product. When taken as a whole, there are numerous intertwined claims and concepts being used to build a "body" of science -- most (or all) of it on a very shaky (if not an absolutely impossible) foundation. We are well past a company with a half true bullet point on a box or embellished talking point. So the scrutiny is warranted.

Adding fancy sounding words like "temporal" and "spatial" only serves to muddy the conversation. Come on Mo. stop trying so hard to reframe this debate and give FM cover. Your observations are fine, but they are just that, your observations.

For clarity, I take publishing as publishing in peer reviewed journals.

Everything else is a claim.
If the science gets published in a peer reviewed journal, then we can accept it.


Until then, it’s just observations and claims. That doesn’t mean the observations are not possible, but no harm in pointing out that in a hobby such as this, that’s about the best we get for most of the marketed products.

User experience counts for a lot.

no harm in “show us your tank” if a certain method has produced those results. Be it kalk, bolus or whatever. lol

 

[Mo.]

I'm sure you are seeing something and was willing to accept your impartiality as real evidence. Then today, I find out you know Doug personally, buy stuff off him, and to top it off are claiming responsibility for the term "Bolus" in this method. I'm very disappointed. Would you like me to provide a link?

Why Don’t you clip it, so everyone can see that the info was freely volunteered during the course of a chat. Hardly the conspiracy you are trying to imply. Lol

Willing to accept my impartiality?? You have many times in this thread tried to question my integrity? No?! Less so in recent times, and less than Bean, which I appreciate! Lol

 

[BeanAnimal]

Bean- you’re starting to become like a repetitive skipping vinyl record.

You pretend to be just an "impartial" observer, but at every turn try to bend the conversation and wording to turn the narrative away from their scientific claims and back to an "it works, so what is the problem here" context.

You have spent considerable time mischaracterizing my remarks and position, as well as that of others. Trying to frame 113 pages of conversation and my remarks as me simply having a personal problem with Claude, Doug and FM is more of the same.

You have a personal relationship with Claude, Doug and FM in general. Is there pricing or consulting consideration there that should be disclosed? (rhetorical).

So -- "in their pocket" or not, your responses are far from "impartial" and you continue to promote your "observations" as rebuttals to the scientific skepticism -- all while telling us you have no dog in the fight and don't wish to argue science.

So by action and behavior, you appear to be running interference on their behalf. If attacking me or others personally makes you feel better, so be it. As for not asking for my (or anybodies input) -- you chose to wade into a public debate and have further chosen to continually inject yourself into parts of the conversation that you claim to have no interest in.

Mo. you are here with an agenda and stirring the pot no matter how much you want us to believe that you are not.

 

[Mo.]

Bean, what is your role here? Apart from FM bashing. Lol.

I have a tank running bolus and previously ran kalk. I may run a different system in future.

I mainly post my observations and my defences against your personal insults.

At least my presence drives some traffic if nothing else. Lol.

I have, to date, not been sponsored by FM in any way. Just in case you missed it. lol.

And trying to twist my comments to suit your agenda is getting boring too.

Try and have a nice day.

 

[Mo.]

Theres no problem with having differing opinions but what you’re saying is your opinion makes no sense as an opinion. You are stating an observation that is contrary to the knowledge we have about bicarbonate, so is it so weird that people doubt what you are saying and ask you how you came to that conclusion and try to find out what may be creating the pH effect?

Hmm.

At this point it’s not just me with these observations. It’s many bolus users.

I didn’t have the explanation, which I stated probably in my very first post as the reason I came here.

However, going over basic chemistry and asking me basic questions about reef keeping observations isn’t going to give you the answers.

I’m trying to say that you can assume that I have enough experience and knowledge to allow us to skip looking at basic observations, such as is it the lighting, only because I have used other methods with exactly the same tank, equipment, light settings with kalk and other methods back and forth to notice a consistent change in pH behaviour, outside of the light boost theory. Which I didn’t use and therefore can’t be the explanation.

But- we have been over this several times and no doubt will do again …… and again.

I suppose if you say it ls the lights enough times , people will believe it’s the lights ?!lol

 

[rtparty]

At least my presence drives some traffic if nothing else. Lol.

And there you have it. The actual reason you are here

 

[Oldreefer44]

OK, we got our 100,000 views and are no further along than when we started. For those of us that are using Bolus and are happy there seems no point in contributing further. For those that are skeptical good on you.