Reefs.org Forums

[MattM]

We got the results back from the sample of EcoSystems Miracle Mud we sent out.

They are posted at: http://www.inlandreef.com/MManalysis.html.

I'll let everyone have a look before I post any conclusions/opinions.

We have microscope photos too, courtesy of Shane G. (LiquidShaneo), but I haven't posted them yet. They'll be added soon.

[jamesw]

Holy Cow!

The sample is 30% SiO2...aka beach sand.

Interesting analysis. The samples are fairly close in composition...

Hope to hear more analysis/conclusions...

James

[liquid]

It means that there's a LOT of iron in Miracle Mud and that you're paying almost $10/lb of a product that is almost 30% common silica sand. [img]images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] I really think the design of the filter (bioballs) and the iron (and possibly magnesium) rich substrate are what fuel the macroalgae growth in this filter. Is it just me or does this filter look like a glorified wet/dry filter? http://www.ecosystemaquarium.com/html/sumps_kits.html

Also, I just took a sample of the Miracle Mud that Matt provided me for the photos and added 6 M HCl to it to see if it effervesced (sp?) (i.e. bubbled) which would indicate the potential presence of some carbonate in the sample. The test came back negative (i.e. the sample did NOT bubble). Thus, there is NO carbonate in this product AT ALL. Interesting...

Thanks Matt and Inland Reef for taking the time to test this!

Oh, btw...Matt, you may want to put up a link to the Lars analysis for reference purposes on your webpage. Just a thought. [img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] Here's the url: http://www.lars-sebralla.de/ma_miracle.html (For any new viewers, the text is in German so use http://babelfish.altavista.com/ to translate it)

Shane (aka "liquid")

[ October 19, 2001: Message edited by: LiquidShaneo ]

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

James:

If I'm interpreting the data correctly, , I get it to be more than 60% SiO2 or other silicates! [counting the oxygen since Si is only 47% of SiO2 by weight]

The high aluminum is probably also in these silicates, and maybe the iron too.

[Coraltank]

So bottom line...If it's called Miracle,Amazing,Stupendous,Etc. it probably ain't,except for the mark-up!Information is Power!Thanks,Matt,from all reefers!

[MattM]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Randy Holmes-Farley:
<STRONG>James:

If I'm interpreting the data correctly, , I get it to be more than 60% SiO2 or other silicates! [counting the oxygen since Si is only 47% of SiO2 by weight]</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are probably correct. The sample prep for this test burns off all the oxygen, so most of the iron, aluminum, silicon, sulfur and several other elements were probably oxides in the original sample.

Re-checking the Ecosystems web site, they still claim that the source of this mud is in the ocean: <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote

"Miracle Mud is oceanic mud, harvested in a certain region at a certain depth"

As I mentioned once before, in microscope photos you can not find any oolitic sand particles, shell fragments, diatoms, or other evidence of ocean life. Here is a comparison of the prominent elements in sea water, compared to MM:



That's a logarithmic plot so you can see the values. Otherwise the silicon overwhelms everything else:



I would not expect a match here, after all, it is a comparison of seawater to a subtrate. But I would expect to see the some amount of the elements in seawater left behind as a result of the drying process. Chlorine is a good example: 19,400 ppm in the ocean, 200 ppm in MM. But Sodium is pretty close: 10,800 in the ocean, and about 10,000 in MM. If the sodium is left over from sea salt, then where did the chlorine go?

I for one, am now convinced that this stuff has never seen the ocean and at least one claim made by EcoSystems is a lie.

The other interesting thing I find in the analysis is the number of "exotic" elements present. Dysprosium, Erbium, Europium, Hafnium, Holmium, Lanthanum, Neodymium, Praseodymium, Samarium, Terbium, Ytterbium, etc. are all in measurable quantities. Hell, it even has Uranium!!!

I can't imagine that these things were intentionally added. The source of this stuff remains a mystery.

[ October 19, 2001: Message edited by: MattM ]

[MattM]

Here's a better version of the above graphs:



I took out the Silicon, streched the vertical axis, and put the lesser elements (from Br to F) on the right side axis.

This is a better comparison - logarithmic charts are misleading unless you're a mathematician or statistician. [img]images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

[tlc]

so what does it mean

[Chucker]

FWIW, I just added the past Miracle Mud threads to the Filtration Systems Archive, so they're all in one place.

[SPC]

Thanks for the info guys.
Steve

[ October 19, 2001: Message edited by: SPC ]

[JeremyR]

Even if it was oceanic in origin.. I've never seen the advantage of an expensive "filter" with bioballs and mud over a natural system with a dsb and refugium. Why do people always try to make things more complicated than they are? [img]images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

[NASAReefKeeper]

This is a very nice discussion.
However, the success of the system is undeniable. So, given that the scientific evidence points to backyard dirt rather than a substrate collected from a marine environment, is that material evidence to the notion that this is “snake oil”?
The mud must be a integral part to the success of the filter.
Now before you flame me… I think it probably just provides a substrate for the natural propagation of the marine algae, fed by the bio ball nitrate factory and the iron content of the mud.

What I also hear is that the system should be equivalent to a refugium full of algae using any substrate capable of sustaining the algae and a DSB. Now what is the DSB needed if the mud basically just hosts the macro-algae? My understanding of the DSB contribution is anaerobic bacterial based nitrogen removal (Nitrite). Does this occur in the Eco filter? I have heard that people who have had great success with this system also have minimal nitrogen problems and do not require additives other than the occasional Kalkwasser… what extra effect is going on other than the macro-algae present in both techniques?

I tell you... Myself and others I know would rather have a refugium or Eco-sump with tons of cool live critters in it than the Berlin ugly-smelly-skimmer-filled sump. That is why I am leaning toward something like the Eco. What I think is the issue is the $8.00 a pound the guy charges for the stuff you could dig up in the back yard and the fact that he claims that the dirt is a miracle solution. Not to be sexist, but when they came out with the “Miracle Bra” I did not argue price or origin… I just was in awe of its success.

[liquid]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote

As I mentioned once before, in microscope photos you can not find any oolitic sand particles, shell fragments, diatoms, or other evidence of ocean life.

I totally agree w/ you. In analyzing that mud under the scope, I couldn't find anything that resembled oceanic origins. The pictures on the Lars website also confirm this as well. Also, I would think that if it did have oceanic origins I would have had a positive reading (i.e. the sample would have bubbled) from the acid test on the mud. According to the Lars website they believe the components of the mud to be: "Quartz, amphiboles, field-late and mica". Now I'm not sure what "amphiboles and field-late" are but then again I'm using Babelfish to translate the text so I'm sure that it's incorrectly translating that text. I'll do a websearch and see what I find. [img]images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Thanks for throwing those graphs together Matt. [img]images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Oh, and I found this quote (after translation) to be particularly interesting off the Lars website:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR> Due to the available results it can be concluded that the filter effect comes off by the construction of the filter chamber, not by the brought in material.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Shane
(aka "liquid")

[ October 19, 2001: Message edited by: LiquidShaneo ]

[MattM]

I've got LiquidShaneo's photos posted now.

The URL again is http://www.inlandreef.com/MManalysis.html

[galleon]

Wow, many thanks to Shane and Matt.
Looking at the photos of the samples posted, I too am convinced that this stuff has never seen the ocean.

[GLD]

I wonder if the Ecosystem will respond with a post?

[bsme]

MattM,

You may be "convinced" that the mud has never seen the ocean, but you may want to stop short of calling the advertisement a lie. The implication is that the Ecosystem folks are liars as well. As for charging $10/lb. for mud, anyone figure out the price per pound of a cyclone skimmer?

[dattack]

So has anybody tried adding laterite or fluorite to the substrate of their refugium to increase the iron content?

[MattM]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by bsme:
<STRONG>...but you may want to stop short of calling the advertisement a lie...</STRONG><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The phrase "I am convinced" was meant to indicate that this is my opinion, not necessarily a statement of incontrovertible fact. And, yes, it is my opinion that the manufacturers of the product are lying about its origin in order to justify its price.

Sorry, as a business owner in the aquarium field and as a person of some integrity, I have a very low tolerance for snake-oil salesmen.

Their actions cast a stain on everyone in my business.

This is why we spent the money for the analysis of this product, why we also had Combi-san analyzed at our own expense, why we blew the wistle on Custom Sea Life when they sold 28W bulbs re-labeled as 32W with no difference in the bulb and at a higher price, why we contacted the members of this board to help in testing our prototype flatworm product prior to shipping, and why we still won't make it a commercial product until we can be assured that it will work without problems.

End of soapbox.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote

<STRONG>As for charging $10/lb. for mud, anyone figure out the price per pound of a cyclone skimmer?</STRONG>

That would be a valid point if I could dig up protein skimmers in my back yard. [img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

[Vins Fins]

The whole success of the eco system is based on superior macro algae growth. I do not use the mud, but what i do use that works just as good is a Ca Reactor.I know that i get some Co2 enriched effluent driping in to my 200 gal sump, my macro algae growth is incredible.I can fill half the sump with calurpa in two weeks.My other contributing growth factor is feeding the fish 4 to 5 times a day. I don't think anyone would wreally argue about the mud if it didn't cost so much.Maybe a thread like this will get those guys to lower their prices [img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]