magnetar68
Guest
I did a search on "Miracle Mud" here and it looks like the sentiment here echos that elsewhere: namely, some swear by it, but many are skeptical. Generally, I am skeptical of anything with the word "miracle" in the name, but was browsing youtube the other day when I saw this somewhat scientific attempt to compare a few different filtration methods.
Now, let me be clear, I would much rather see this test being carried out by a truly objective 3rd party, not the company that has everything to gain from promoting its product. Actually, I think it would be great if there was a non-profit group funded by world-wide reef hobbyists to do some true scientific testing. Advanced Aquarist does some of this stuff, like Sanjay Joshi has tried with lighting, but AA does take money from advertisers most of whom are product manufactures, so they have the potential to loose objectivity in my judgement and therefore I think a better model exists.
For those of you who do not click on the video, the setup is that they have 4 identical Bare-bottom tanks all with the exact same equipment (tank size, overflow, heater, return pump, etc). All of them use ~100ml of GFO (Eco Phos), but no GAC. There are 4 different permutations they are testing:
1) Berlin method: 24x7 protein skimmer, no refugium, no miracle mud
2) Old school EcoSystem method from Leng with a miracle mud refugium and bioballs instead of a protein skimmer
3) The "Mike Palletta" method where he uses a 24x7 protein skimmer instead of the bioballs
4) A "EcoSystem Plus/Modified Palletta" method where the protein skimmer is only use 6 hours per day.
The main problem with the video's test is that the results can simply be rigged: they may not be cleaning all tanks the same or some other active or passive manipulation that skews the results. Giving Leng the benefit of the doubt (some would argue that is not a very scientific thing to do), let's assume there is no deception going on and things are as stated. Also, we do not have here a number of datapoints that would be considered statistical significant; but that is clearly not reasonable given the costs involved.
While Leng has yet to post any specific results, based on his statements in the video, following two observations can be deduced thus far in the experiment:
1) Leng's original method is not as good as his method with the addition of a protein skimmer
2) Having a refugium and protein skimmer is better than having a protein skimmer, but no refugium.
Of course, there are no scientific measurements here, but Leng does use some terms that one could use to infer what he will eventually conclude: some tanks are "cleaner" and the corals "have more color" (and maybe more polyp extension -- I don't think he mentions that here, but Mike Palletta mentions that in a video on his 300G system). The video does not zoom in enough to really see the color or poly extension or see things side-by-side, so all that is obvious is that the tank without miracle mud has a lot more algae in the places where he did not clean it (back and sides).
Now there are several issues with this experiment. The primary one being that he does not test a system with a refugium with no miracle mud. So we don't know whether the (somewhat subjective) claim about the cleanliness of the tank and the coral color comes from the miracle mud or simply the use of a refugium. I think having a tank with a refugium but without miracle mud would have gone much further in addressing the concern that miracle mud is a placebo.
Another potential problem is that none of them deploy GAC or a sandbed, which would be common in most modern setups and certainly part of the filtration on the system. Certainly, the vast majority of us have sand beds, so running an old school bare bottom tank experiment is not inline with what most reefers do today. In terms of GAC, we know it clear the water and removes certain compounds, but it may be depriving corals of beneficial foods and nutrients, so comparing a system with GAC to one without it would need be done more objectively.
Long story short: yes, you can have a nice tank with miracle mud; but still no real evidence here that it yields results over and above tanks without it.
-Ray
Now, let me be clear, I would much rather see this test being carried out by a truly objective 3rd party, not the company that has everything to gain from promoting its product. Actually, I think it would be great if there was a non-profit group funded by world-wide reef hobbyists to do some true scientific testing. Advanced Aquarist does some of this stuff, like Sanjay Joshi has tried with lighting, but AA does take money from advertisers most of whom are product manufactures, so they have the potential to loose objectivity in my judgement and therefore I think a better model exists.
For those of you who do not click on the video, the setup is that they have 4 identical Bare-bottom tanks all with the exact same equipment (tank size, overflow, heater, return pump, etc). All of them use ~100ml of GFO (Eco Phos), but no GAC. There are 4 different permutations they are testing:
1) Berlin method: 24x7 protein skimmer, no refugium, no miracle mud
2) Old school EcoSystem method from Leng with a miracle mud refugium and bioballs instead of a protein skimmer
3) The "Mike Palletta" method where he uses a 24x7 protein skimmer instead of the bioballs
4) A "EcoSystem Plus/Modified Palletta" method where the protein skimmer is only use 6 hours per day.
The main problem with the video's test is that the results can simply be rigged: they may not be cleaning all tanks the same or some other active or passive manipulation that skews the results. Giving Leng the benefit of the doubt (some would argue that is not a very scientific thing to do), let's assume there is no deception going on and things are as stated. Also, we do not have here a number of datapoints that would be considered statistical significant; but that is clearly not reasonable given the costs involved.
While Leng has yet to post any specific results, based on his statements in the video, following two observations can be deduced thus far in the experiment:
1) Leng's original method is not as good as his method with the addition of a protein skimmer
2) Having a refugium and protein skimmer is better than having a protein skimmer, but no refugium.
Of course, there are no scientific measurements here, but Leng does use some terms that one could use to infer what he will eventually conclude: some tanks are "cleaner" and the corals "have more color" (and maybe more polyp extension -- I don't think he mentions that here, but Mike Palletta mentions that in a video on his 300G system). The video does not zoom in enough to really see the color or poly extension or see things side-by-side, so all that is obvious is that the tank without miracle mud has a lot more algae in the places where he did not clean it (back and sides).
Now there are several issues with this experiment. The primary one being that he does not test a system with a refugium with no miracle mud. So we don't know whether the (somewhat subjective) claim about the cleanliness of the tank and the coral color comes from the miracle mud or simply the use of a refugium. I think having a tank with a refugium but without miracle mud would have gone much further in addressing the concern that miracle mud is a placebo.
Another potential problem is that none of them deploy GAC or a sandbed, which would be common in most modern setups and certainly part of the filtration on the system. Certainly, the vast majority of us have sand beds, so running an old school bare bottom tank experiment is not inline with what most reefers do today. In terms of GAC, we know it clear the water and removes certain compounds, but it may be depriving corals of beneficial foods and nutrients, so comparing a system with GAC to one without it would need be done more objectively.
Long story short: yes, you can have a nice tank with miracle mud; but still no real evidence here that it yields results over and above tanks without it.
-Ray