[Socratic monologue]

FWIW, I couple years ago I tried switching from AC to Purigen and got very poor results in both FW and SW. And also, I agree with that author that Seachem's products are (hyperbolic, but the idea is on target) "99% markup". All of these sorts of products are. So I'm not basing any evaluation on this authors' Purigen or Seachem stance.

Too much of the site reads like conspiracy theory ranting. The 'Homepage' is a rant on "bullcrap on social media" and nine paragraphs of telling the reader how much of an authority he is by simply stating 'I'm an authority, and any criticism of this just rolls off an authority like me', accompanied by a meme cuz he's cool too, apparently. He sure doesn't come off as a "degreed" (high school?) chemist/research scientist. Academic professionals actually tend to display themselves as fairly respectable in their writing in my experience, as they know this is how you get people's positive attention.

Google finds thirteen mentions of PETA (all gratuitous snarky jabs). The numerous claims of lies by marketing departments isn't necessary in evaluating the performance of a filtration medium. Both of these are, argumentatively speaking, fallacies and as tools of rhetoric, juvenile.

On a section on "Facebook and Fake Accounts" (which is hard to understand why it merits being on an aquarium science website), in which he recounts making claims about a Seachem product on FB that got a bunch of replies:

"The negative comments were interesting. The comments shared syntax and had some common words. I think it is reasonable to allege these criticisms on Facebook originated in the the Seachem marketing department." Reasonable for a person of a certain irrational mindset, perhaps. Getting a lot of criticism (the author goes out of his way to tell that he does) makes a person a bit unreasonable about getting more, I suppose.

The Purigen 'study' doesn't read like one constructed by a research chemist. At all. No reference to the specifics of the experimental conditions, a silly dismissal of the need for statistical analysis, and so on. Given his repeated (Google gives ten pages of hits, about 100 instances) disparaging of Seachem (why this company in particular?) it is quite plausible that this 'data' is simply fabricated (why not photos of the test setup, instead of random fish?). This odd "study" undermines the 'authority' claims on the homepage which in turn undermine any claim on the website that doesn't stand on its own merits.

A collection of claims of questionable veracity, made with an explicit agenda (against social media, corporations, PETA, etc) by someone who won't reveal their real identity and fails completely to establish a trustworthy online identity, is simply more misinformation, more online noise. Worse than worthless.

 

[Blue Ridge Reef]

He's singing to the choir about social media, corporations and PeTA. My biggest gripe is how he throws around the word "proof." I'm far from a degreed chemist but even I know that the results of a single test are at best evidence. If someone would start a Go Fund Me for putting aquarium products through rigorous testing, I would be the first to pony up. The hobby needs it.

I have seen so much change in the preferred methods of aquarium keeping over the decades. When I joined this forum I was using cable heaters under the substrate for planted tanks. I'm not sure those are even made anymore. I bought the most expensive plastic bio media Sera made for reef tank's sumps and within a few years the trend became to use no bio media at all and the sump became little more than a place for your protein skimmer. But the products and their marketing are what keep surprising me. We know that crushed coral substrate is, for all intents and purposes, 10 cent a pound oyster grit. Snow Flakes shrimp food can be bought for pennies on the dollar as a bird food. I've become suspicious of anything with a proprietary "recipe." But I keep buying it. Having 11 tanks; I was buying Purigen by the 2 liter jars and Poly Filter by the big $50 sheet. I can't "see" that either does anything AC doesn't. And I stopped using AC with any regularity ages ago. Why am I buying this stuff? Is it even benefiting my aquariums? I honestly don't know. But I want to.

 

[Blue Ridge Reef]

Beautiful grayband in your avatar, BTW @Socratic monologue. I bred those for a few years, but gave them for colubrids whose babies were more inclined to eat pinkies.

 

[Socratic monologue]

But the products and their marketing are what keep surprising me. We know that crushed coral substrate is, for all intents and purposes, 10 cent a pound oyster grit. Snow Flakes shrimp food can be bought for pennies on the dollar as a bird food. I've become suspicious of anything with a proprietary "recipe." But I keep buying it.

Actually, I think crushed coral is closer to crushed limestone, which is about $20 a yard -- about 2200 lbs -- at a landscape supply. Driving over there (twenty miles out past the LFS), convincing them to sell me just 50lbs of it, then rinsing it, grading it, picking out the nails and sticks and wondering if that funny spot is motor oil or what, then realizing once I get it wet it doesn't look nearly as nice as the Fiji Pink in my other tank makes the upcharge for a ready to use, nicely packaged product worth it.

Worth it to me, anyway, and any research chemist who don't think it is worth it should just go do it their own way. Making a big deal about the fact that my $25 a box eco-friendly laundry detergent is just sodium carbonate, basically, which wholesales for $200 a ton, would be more relevant to more people than the same fact about some niche hobby product, but that author clearly has some very specific bone to pick.

Thanks for the compliment on the alterna. I have a pair (the pictured Loma Alta and a Langtry) that I'll be breeding next year, chosen as early and easy feeders themselves, a trait that can carry over to the offspring. Among the other snakes I regularly breed, I breed knoblochi every year, which can be troublesome starters, and hognose which I've had good luck starting.

 

[Nature Freak]

Great discussion, thanks all.


Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk

 

[gjcarew]

I'd like to find out who it is and why they have such a hatred for Seachem.

The "experiments" are at least ATTEMPTS at being scientific, so I think the author deserves some credit.

Other sections, like fertilization, are pretty laughably silly. Quoting Dustin from Dustin's Fish Tanks as an expert on fertilization, for example. Dustin literally sells dirt on his website, but Seachem are the frauds for selling ferrous gluconate

 

[Leeatl]

I would like to know too for curiosity if nothing else. I can't find anything using Somewhatshocked's suggestion about old domain info. I know a guy that references the site all the time, may be the author. I just dropped out of that FB group today because of his constant pointing to the site.

 

[Greggz]

Quoting Dustin from Dustin's Fish Tanks as an expert on fertilization, for example. Dustin literally sells dirt on his website, but Seachem are the frauds for selling ferrous gluconate

LOL one of the funniest posts I have read in a long time.

Quoting Dustin should be an immediate ban from all serious discussions of growing plants.

This might be the most ridiculous discussion I have ever seen here. Seems like it was dreamed up by the department of not growing plants.

 

[Dirty dan]

Mentioned this last night:



Don't want to dox or identify him but it's out there and generally public information. It's just not immediately apparent. Then again, I find people who don't want to be found for a living. So 🤷‍♂️.

Became suspicious initially in looking at the products he rails against and/or is dishonest about - like stuff from Seachem and CaribSea - and there's little to back up his claims.

I'd be more inclined to support someone if they were transparent about their likes and dislikes. Like @Deanna. They don't necessarily identify themselves but make it clear when they like or don't like something and explain why. So I, personally, don't need to know more about their identity.

Sites like that make me really appreciate people who make their biases clear. Specifically when it comes to product reviews.

And to @FischAutoTechGarten: You aren't internetting if you aren't typoing. That's what I tell myself, anyway.

i can contest your seachem claim. i had a tank with no biologocal filtration that had around 3 nitrites and 100 nitrates. i dumped an eighth of a bottle (about 12.5 fluid ounces) then immediately measured everything again and saw no change. i measured an hour later and saw no change. i dumped the rest of the bottle in there and a few days later there was still no change, so i just did a 90% water change then measured again and everything was close to zero. this was a 1.5 gallon tank. i asked the author for a recommendation for a canister filter and bought a sunsun HW-302. when it arrived i immediately set it up and removed the 20 gallon hang on back and 10 gallon hang on back filters from the 20 gallon tank. nitrites and nitrates went as high as my test kit could read (10 nitrite and 250 nitrate are the max and i used aqua care pro test strips and yes i have a lot of fish). about 2 weeks later everything was almost zero so i opened my canister filter and saw bacteria through out the sponges. i never used any seachem stability or similar products.

also, it doesnt always say this but throughout the website it mentions youtubers like gary from aquarium co-op and gives descriptions about the videos he watched. the anonymous author is active on the page so if you leave a comment he will respond in a day or two. everyone calls him dave, but it seems like its run by two people, so either the writer is named dave or the anonymous person, but theres no last name. with how everything is written it seems the anonymous person gives the writer information and the writer uploads it to the website.

i also looked into the fertilizers he recommends and all the ingredients are what are used in common seachem fertilizers and similar products, but in much higher concentrations and significantly cheaper. i also compared his claims about the flourish tabs only being good as a source of iron and honestly hes right. plants like dwarf Sagittarius and Sagittarius did amazing with these tabs, but any other plants like myrio or my java fern (the java narrow leaf seems to be doing ok but the other one with fatter leaves is losing leaves and getting holes) struggled and are slowly dieing with only these tablets (which is why i bought other fertilizers). the nutrition page on the package says ".8% nitrogen .11% phosphate, .28% potash, 23.3% calcium, .29% magnesium, 16.15% sulfur, .003% boron, .002% cobalt, .006% copper, 3.07% iron, .16% manganese, .0005% molybdenum, and .003% zinc. 2 bags of this was $50 on amazon. for a couple dollars more, i was able to get 5 pounds of urea (46% nitrogen), 5 pounds of potassium sulfate (potash), and half a pound of pure ammonium sulfate (nitrogen and sulfer) on amazon.com. this is many times more plant fertilizer than the two bags of seachem flourish tabs, and i expect it to last a whole lot longer. he does mention easy green from aquarium co-op and says it is a very good fertilizer but is still expensive. on the website it says 500 ml of easy green is $19.99 . he also shows the math he did concerning the concentration of seachems fertilizers to explain why he thinks its so expensive and ineffective

he also mentions research throughout the website about a variety of topics and even gives the names of these studies. these were the kinds of studies college students are required to use. i highly suggest looking into these journals. maybe it will change your mind.

someone commented recently to claim a couple things he had were wrong, and the author said he is open to the idea if the commenter can prove it. so maybe ask about how he did the seachem studies so you can repeat it and get confirmation?

 

[mourip]

i can contest your seachem claim. i had a tank with no biologocal filtration that had around 3 nitrites and 100 nitrates. i dumped an eighth of a bottle (about 12.5 fluid ounces) then immediately measured everything again and saw no change. i measured an hour later and saw no change. i dumped the rest of the bottle in there and a few days later there was still no change, so i just did a 90% water change then measured again and everything was close to zero. this was a 1.5 gallon tank. i asked the author for a recommendation for a canister filter and bought a sunsun HW-302. when it arrived i immediately set it up and removed the 20 gallon hang on back and 10 gallon hang on back filters from the 20 gallon tank. nitrites and nitrates went as high as my test kit could read (10 nitrite and 250 nitrate are the max and i used aqua care pro test strips and yes i have a lot of fish). about 2 weeks later everything was almost zero so i opened my canister filter and saw bacteria through out the sponges. i never used any seachem stability or similar products.

also, it doesnt always say this but throughout the website it mentions youtubers like gary from aquarium co-op and gives descriptions about the videos he watched. the anonymous author is active on the page so if you leave a comment he will respond in a day or two. everyone calls him dave, but it seems like its run by two people, so either the writer is named dave or the anonymous person, but theres no last name. with how everything is written it seems the anonymous person gives the writer information and the writer uploads it to the website.

i also looked into the fertilizers he recommends and all the ingredients are what are used in common seachem fertilizers and similar products, but in much higher concentrations and significantly cheaper. i also compared his claims about the flourish tabs only being good as a source of iron and honestly hes right. plants like dwarf Sagittarius and Sagittarius did amazing with these tabs, but any other plants like myrio or my java fern (the java narrow leaf seems to be doing ok but the other one with fatter leaves is losing leaves and getting holes) struggled and are slowly dieing with only these tablets (which is why i bought other fertilizers). the nutrition page on the package says ".8% nitrogen .11% phosphate, .28% potash, 23.3% calcium, .29% magnesium, 16.15% sulfur, .003% boron, .002% cobalt, .006% copper, 3.07% iron, .16% manganese, .0005% molybdenum, and .003% zinc. 2 bags of this was $50 on amazon. for a couple dollars more, i was able to get 5 pounds of urea (46% nitrogen), 5 pounds of potassium sulfate (potash), and half a pound of pure ammonium sulfate (nitrogen and sulfer) on amazon.com. this is many times more plant fertilizer than the two bags of seachem flourish tabs, and i expect it to last a whole lot longer. he does mention easy green from aquarium co-op and says it is a very good fertilizer but is still expensive. on the website it says 500 ml of easy green is $19.99. he also shows the math he did concerning the concentration of seachems fertilizers to explain why he thinks its so expensive and ineffective

he also mentions research throughout the website about a variety of topics and even gives the names of these studies. these were the kinds of studies college students are required to use. i highly suggest looking into these journals. maybe it will change your mind.

someone commented recently to claim a couple things he had were wrong, and the author said he is open to the idea if the commenter can prove it. so maybe ask about how he did the seachem studies so you can repeat it and get confirmation?

I use Prime and find it effective. I have not tried any Seachem ferts other than some K. I use AIO ferts from some other smaller vendors. I have not read the web site in question.

However... I do find it interesting that you joined 4 hours ago and your first post is to defend the site/person being discussed. Can you introduce yourself? That might help add credibility to your point of view.

 

[somewhatshocked]

Can you introduce yourself?

They won't be able to because they're the same clown who continually spreads pseudoscience and other nonsense in relation to that particular site. They appear to be from the "do your research" crowd - the folks who yell that when they realize their internet quackery isn't exactly catching on.

Edit: This thread isn't permanently closed. Just temporarily to stave off the buffoonery and spam.