Bottled Bacteria, AquaBiomics. Just what's in your bottles

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Doesn't the apostrophe go between the n and the t? Is that a new question?

No, its proper grammer, and if you read the grammer literature yourself you'd already know it. It's interesting that you don't have time to do that.

 

[GlassMunky]

That's of course ridiculous to say. You have no idea how many thousands of hours I have happily answered questions for people in hundreds of thousands of posts over several decades.

and many people myself included have thanked you for that. still does not change the vibe you give off that at this point in time you are tired of it and we are all stupid for asking the questions. and we are all dumb because get info from sources you dont find credible, so they aren't worth your time to look over to continue the conversation at hand. .

 

[GlassMunky]

Thanks for quick reply.

OK, I get it.

There is a method scientists use to evaluate information quality based on years of training, but I don’t think explaining how this works is going to make you feel any better after the apparent slight.

i understand the scientific method. but that doesnt change the fact that you can still get good information from sources other than peer reviewed studies for many reasons. its more the attitude towards the rest of us that bothers me. its an arrogant tone that alot of academics get....

 

[GlassMunky]

No, its proper grammer, and if you read the grammer literature yourself you'd already know it. It's interesting that you don't have time to do that.

its interesting again, that you have time to come here an argue these studpid threads and go at this back and forth but when people link you to information that takes less time than this you cant be bothered.
Shows your priorities.

 

[rtparty]

Ouch, what triggered this?

Geez, raise the critiques up a notch, no?

Par for the course sadly

 

[Solo McReefer]

There is a method scientists use to evaluate information quality based on

Based on whether or not money can be made

No real science is going to be done on these bugs to see if they are "good or bad" for corals in home aquariums

There's no money in it

If any scientists are studying any of these bugs, it's to get a pharmaceutical that causes a 3 month engorgement of human mammary tissue

Reef hobbyists will need to do the science if it is to be done, as dirty as that is.

Aside, I just got 3 more bottles of bugs this morning from BRS. Edit, 4 bottles, accidentally bought a "freshwater" bottle

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

and many people myself included have thanked you for that. still does not change the vibe you give off that at this point in time you are tired of it and we are all stupid for asking the questions. and we are all dumb because get info from sources you dont find credible, so they aren't worth your time to look over to continue the conversation at hand. .

Sorry about the vibe you get.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

its interesting again, that you have time to come here an argue these studpid threads and go at this back and forth but when people link you to information that takes less time than this you cant be bothered.
Shows your priorities.

Um, OK. Not sure what you are on about except being angry from your other thread, but unless you want to discuss aspects of bacteria in reef tanks and identifying them, I will discontinue my back and forth with you on this one so as not to push it even further off track.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

He has many times in many threads been given the source to information pertinent to the conversation at hand but won’t look at it because it’s not the format he thinks is credible enough

OK, sorry, I'll bite despite saying I'd discontinue the back and forth.

What source has the answer to my questions?

Only thing I heard was the "scientific literature".

That is what you are referring to?

 

[Garf]

Just like R2R mods to dodge the issue at hand

Did I miss the part where there was credible information issued, regarding good Vs bad?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Just like R2R mods to dodge the issue at hand and just move on ignoring it.
Par for the course.

If you believe I have violated any rules of Reef2Reef, I'd suggest reporting it.

 

[areefer01]

Not sure what you mean by "here", but I consider my role at Reef2Reef to be two fold:

1. To learn things myself.
2. To shed light on scientific issues that may be very hard for nonscientific folks to understand, or even to know what questions to ask about products and services.

There are a great many products and services sold to reefers that are beyond their understanding, and when these are promoted as being beneficial, folks often buy them unaware of potential complications. Some are purely bogus (say, Vibrant), some are simply misleading (IMO) such as maintaining rubidium concentrations, some are very hard to evaluate (secret concoctions), and some may be great products or ideas that are just very hard to know when or how they are best to implement and best not.

Often times, an unbiased and scientifically focused discussion of these complexities can help folks know what is worth their acquiring as a tool, and what may be best left alone. Many people appreciate such discussions, whether I personally provide critical scientific input or just know some useful questions to ask, and make others feel more free to express expert, unbiased opinions or show their own results that may be counter to the current prevailing reefing trend..

To be transparent you are also paid staff, no?

Edit: for clarity I also know your history from other forums and what you have done for the hobby. It is appreciated by many. My point is that maybe a 3rd line item may be worth noting. As you replied to telegram you answer the questions 53,000 times.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

To be transparent you are also paid staff, no?

Edit: for clarity I also know your history from other forums and what you have done for the hobby. It is appreciated by many. My point is that maybe a 3rd line item may be worth noting. As you replied to telegram you answer the questions 53,000 times.

It is not a secret that Rev gives me a small stipend to me to help provide scientific and chemistry guidance to members at Reef2Reef, as have other reefing sites in the past. That stipend amounts to a very tiny fraction of my income (below 0.1%) and has no bearing on what I post. If the intent is to point out why I might interject myself in threads to help clarify technical points that were not specifically addressed to me, then yes, that is a reasonable suggestion.

 

[Oldreefer44]

I suggest asking for a raise. I can't wait to put out my observations on the Bolus method as they are sure to create a great deal of controversy and criticism and numerous questions that even a former MENSA member will be unable to answer to the satisfaction of others.

 

[Dan_P]

i understand the scientific method. but that doesnt change the fact that you can still get good information from sources other than peer reviewed studies for many reasons. its more the attitude towards the rest of us that bothers me. its an arrogant tone that alot of academics get....

I get how you could perceive arrogance but I feel as strongly that the intent to belittle or look down on you is totally absent. I am also slowly beginning to understand how an academic style can sound arrogant, and yeah, some academics and authority figures wield it like a sword. Just to put a plug in for scientists, they are becoming more aware of their shortcomings in communication with the nonacademics, aka, the public, me, you, and they are actively looking for ways to improve.

Now, we also have to understand something about ourselves. With the age of the internet came the age of our own arrogance. We think we can understand any subject just as well as an expert because we can find a three sentence burb of knowledge Google churns up. I exaggerate of course. You can find a lot of good knowledge on a subject. The tough bit is integrating it all and understanding the “so what” of it all. That we can’t do anywhere near as well as the experts. I fall victim of this way too often. I read but fail to ask questions of an expert afterwards to get the information straight. And the very broad topic of bacteria in an aquarium is a whopper of a complex subject to understand. There’s bound to be debates about what reality the reality is.

 

[taricha]

How confident is one that detecting a known pathogenic strain of some type of bacterium actually indicates a problem?

Since I need to prove I can actually look up stuff myself, I'll ask it this way:

Since it is established that finding pathogenic strains of bacteria in the GI tract of people says little about whether they are actually suffering any symptoms, why would one assume that this not frequently also the case in reef tanks? Do such tests just serve to scare people without apparent issues?

It depends on the bacteria detected. Some strains like the arcobacter strain associated with BJD is very frequently associated with coral disease - either past, current, or rarely - but it has happened - the detection by aquabiomics actually precedes the visible coral disease outbreak in the tank.
I come back to arcobacter because it's like the posterchild for usefulness of the method regarding pathogens.

Other strains like those associated with SCTLD (stony coral tissue loss disease) are less clear-cut, because SCTLD in the wild is characterized by like 5 bacteria types together. So if your aquabiomics report has 1 or even 2 SCTLD-pathogens, I'm not super-worried about that. But if you've got like 4 of the 5 detected, then yeah. That's unambiguously bad.

Other pathogens are detected with an "average level", "typical range" , and "prevalence" printed next to it.

(sample report)

So I'd say this gives you enough info to conclude statistically how scared you should or should or shouldn't be about a pathogen detection. Yes, it require some statistical sense on the user's part.

On the other end, sometimes detections of concerning bacteria are so common that it tells you nothing.
Use vibrio as the example here - every mature tank that's thick with gorgeous coral is going to have a lot of vibrio. But if conditons in the tank trigger them, many of them could actually become pathogenic.
Nothing in the aquabiomics test does or could predict that.

(I get that this thread is generating so much heat in addition to some light - but it's always worth thinking hard about what our analytical tools can actually tell us before we use them and go too far down the road pondering the results too much. That's true for color changing chemistry tests, ICP, and microbiome tests too. All are useful, but we need to think hard about the situations of usefulness.
people conflate debating the usefulness of an analytical tool with questioning the character of those who sell and use the tool. And if we really think the tool sucks we might let one slip into the other. oops.)

 

[Dan_P]

It is not a secret that Rev gives me a small stipend to me to help provide scientific and chemistry guidance to members at Reef2Reef, as have other reefing sites in the past. That stipend amounts to a very tiny fraction of my income (below 0.1%) and has no bearing on what I post. If the intent is to point out why I might interject myself in threads to help clarify technical points that were not specifically addressed to me, then yes, that is a reasonable suggestion.

So, you are making less than $500,000 on this gig????? Are you even getting a logo tee shirt or baseball cap?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I get how you could perceive arrogance but I feel as strongly that the intent to belittle or look down on you is totally absent. I am also slowly beginning to understand how an academic style can sound arrogant, and yeah, some academics and authority figures wield it like a sword. Just to put a plug in for scientists, they are becoming more aware of their shortcomings in communication with the nonacademics, aka, the public, me, you, and they are actively looking for ways to improve.

Now, we also have to understand something about ourselves. With the age of the internet came the age of our own arrogance. We think we can understand any subject just as well as an expert because we can find a three sentence burb of knowledge Google churns up. I exaggerate of course. You can find a lot of good knowledge on a subject. The tough bit is integrating it all and understanding the “so what” of it all. That we can’t do anywhere near as well as the experts. I fall victim of this way too often. I read but fail to ask questions of an expert afterwards to get the information straight. And the very broad topic of bacteria in an aquarium is a whopper of a complex subject to understand. There’s bound to be debates about what reality the reality is.

I know you probably know this, and I understand folks may not be making the claim, but for folks who do not know me, I just want to clarify that I am not, nor have I ever been an academic.

I have been working at jobs in various industries since 1978, including photographic film, industrial adhesives and coatings, and for the past 33 years, pharmaceuticals and medical devices. My work has always been judged by whether it created something useful and/or allowed the company I worked for to potentially make more money.

 

[Dan_P]

people conflate debating the usefulness of an analytical tool with questioning the character of those who sell and use the tool. And if we really think the tool sucks we might let one slip into the other. oops.)

Wonderful insight…oh yeah, the stuff about bacteria and coral disease was interesting too.

 

[Dan_P]