Another Bbacterial Starter- Digging Out The Info.

[TwoTankAmin]

So I was in a fish chat where somebody was swearing by the fw bacterial started from API called Quick Start. My curiosity gene immediately activated and I set out to see what was in this product. I had my doubts about it when it was first introduced because of the claim that the product had a 2 year shelf life. This contradicted what I know about the AOB in aquariums. This claim was enough for me to say its the wrong bacteria likely and I left it at that.
 
As a result of the recent statements in the chat, I set out to see what more I could find. Here are the first bits of information I found at this link http/www.apifishcare.com/product.php?p=details&id=618
 
1. The 2 year claim was nowhere to be seen, I could not find any shelf life info at all.
 
2. This statement "The unique, patented nitrifying bacteria in QUICK START are scientifically proven to quickly consume ammonia and nitrite to help prevent new tank syndrome."
 
Well I figured patented bacteria is nice scientific proof is also nice. So my next move was to go to Google patents and see if I could find the patent for this product and find out what bacteria they have in the bottle. That proved fruitless so I called Mars and had to leave my Q on a machine. They called back when I was out and left me a message stating all they information they are willing to giove out is on the pages at the link or connected to it as above and in thre MSDS filing (that is the Safety Data Sheet according to OSHA HazCom Standard (2012) requirements). And there I found the bacteria identified as follows:
Nitrosomonas eutropha and Nitrobacter winogradski
 
If you are reading this you are likely already aware that the first is an AOB and the second an NOB. You also probably know the the N. winogradski is not the NOB that is found in aquariums over time. It is one which is best adapted to much higher nitrite levels than occur in fish tanks. Here is what the scientific research has shown:
 

 
In total, the data suggest that Nitrobacter winogradskyi and close relatives were not the dominant nitrite-oxidizing bacteria in freshwater aquaria. Instead, nitrite oxidation in freshwater aquaria appeared to be mediated by bacteria closely related toNitrospira moscoviensis and Nitrospira marina.

from http/aem.asm.org/content/64/1/258.full
 
So already I could see that the wrong NOB were involved. As for the AOB, it is a similar result. Nitrosomonas eutropha is not the AOB in aquariums either. I wont go into the details bug those truly curious can read the research regarding this Nitrosomonas AOB and then compare it to the information about Nitrosomonas marina AOB. These also were identified as the AOB in fw aquaria.
 
Then I clicked the link to the scientific proof this product works. It was not published peer reviewed research in a well respected journal as it the research on the actually bacteria we would like. It looked to be in house research. And it made a few assumptions that were not realistic.
 
1. The design of the test is supposedly modeled on how most fish keepers cycle with fish and add more fish before the tank has cycled for the intial load. They put 3 guppies into a 20 gal tank and after 7 days and then they added another 5 guppies. Now I have been advising and helping people cycle tanks for some time now. And I know that the above is pure horses poop. For one most people now tend to do a fishless cycle. But most folks who do a fish in cycle do not tend to add more fish after 7 days. Nitrite has not even appeared yet- that is plain silly to assume this is how the small number of fish in cyclers operate. I am sure some make this mistake but not too many. Most wait for the first round of ammonia and nitrite to 0 out before they bump the load.
 
2. Then I looked at their charts and levels data for ammonia and nitrite. Bear in mind I have fishlessly cycled a few tanks using Dr. Tim's bacterial product and had tanks ready for a full fish load usually in a week. No ammonia and no nitrite would show after 3 ppm was added and tested 24 hours later. But this product using fish had ammonia peaking at about .25 had they used an API kit and not going yo 0 until day 15 or 16. For nitrite the numbers showed almost none at any time.
 
Here is what I know about using the N. winogradski. It loves higher levels of nitrite than are normally found in established tanks. If you add it at the outset it will handle the initial spike during a cycle, but in the end when the tanks is finished cycling there will be very little of it found. Instead, there will be a thriving colony of Nitrosopira. This NOB thrives at the lower levels in a tank.
 
So, in the end, if one could test their filter media or gravel 3 months after the tank was started I doubt there will be many of either of the bacterias in the API bottle in the tank. However, the proper bacteria will be there in number.
 
Now this product may provide a bridge to getting cycled that will help in some situations. But there are other products that will do the job more correctly and more efficiently and more effectively.
 
It seems to me that a worthwhile bacterial starter can be added in sufficient amount either to cycle a tank almost instantly or else in a relatively short time. And by cycled I mean make a tank safe for a full fish load. Do 8 guppies in a 20 gal. tank constitute a full fish load?
 
Here is what I see in the industry. If there is any chance a given type of product might work and if some folks will buy a product of that type, all them sooner or later will offer their own version. No there are all sorts of hang on power filters than can do the job made by an assortment of companies. But a filter is not a loving thing. There is a limit to what bacteria will end up in tanks. And the only way to know which these may be is to do the rigorous science it takes to determine this. The are a number of AOB that dominate in different environments- salt water, fresh water, soil and then the extremophiles which live near thermal vents and such. The may all oxidize ammonia, but that doesn't mean they all belong in a fw tank or will end up being the ones in an established tank.
 
The Nitrospira are pretty ubiquitous. they are found in both fw and sw, they are found in rift lake with high pH and acid waters at 4.0. And it is clear these dominate in lower nitrite conditions while the winogradski do so at much higher levels.
 
I am curious re anybody else's take on all this and if anybody else even cares whats in all these starter products. I am a bit of a nut on this topic so I will understand if nobody cares to chime in.
 
 
 
 
 

 

[EllieJellyEllie]

Great job TTA, as always. This needs to be pinned

 

[sawickib]

So im thinking about getting a 90-125 gallon tank and putting some established media and using the kick start bacteria to do a fish-in cycle would that help? And if i did fishless would the cycle be a lot quicker by dosing ammonia? 
 
Btw great work id never be able to do as extensive research myself.

 

[TwoTankAmin]

The addition of any desired bacteria will always make a cycle go faster than not adding it. The more you add the faster it goes. add enough and the tank is fully cycled instantly.
 
But in the end, the bacteria that do the work they need to are the variety that can do well with lower lconcentrations of ammonia and nitrite. It is likely that Archaea are also involved in sw tanks and may be present as well in fw ones. But the later is still open to debate.
 
But the thing about the products with the wrong bacteria is they may still work in a fashion. The function long enough to allow the whole process to happen with less ammonia and nitrite showing but will not save huge amounts of time

 

[TwoTankAmin]

I have been overly busy of late and I left out what I think is the real issue I wanted to bring out by starting this thread. Humor me here and accept the assumption about what nitrifying bacteria are in fw tanks. Further, you will have to accept the science part about notrospira vs wynogradski or between various notrosomonas and their substrate affinity. (This refers to what concentrations or nitrite or ammonia they can thrive at.)
 
When you read the literature you begin to understand that bacteria are highly adaptable and usually pretty persistent. By this I mean it is one thing to have most of them die off when substrate concentrations in their environment change noticeably, but it is almost impossible that all of them die off. To simplify this discussion from here on in I am going to limit to just the ammonia oxidizers (AOB)
 
In our tanks there are a few of the higher ammonia loving bacteria living with the lower level type that predominates. There are even likely some of the Archaea which are known to have the lowest affinity levels for ammonia. They can thrive where all others would starve. When we cycle a tank (except for those well planted ones), we allow the tank to experience various levels of ammonia. The pattern is usually the levels start or rise to their highest point and then come down to 0. Since we know both bacteria and fish can be harmed or killed by ammonia, there is a limit. Again, to simplify things I will only consider a fishless cycle herefor the moment.
 
We know if we exceed 5 ppm total ammonia-nitrogen (TAN) of 5 ppm or, as measured on the ion scale commonly used in the hobby kits 6.4 ppm, that it can harm and even kill the bacteria. What it will be affecting this way is the type of AOB that thrives at lower ammonia levels. What will also start to happen is it will encourage the AOB with higher a substrate affinity to thrive and reproduce. This works in both directions. In places where ammonia levels are higher and the high ammonia loving AOB predominate, a sustained drop in ammonia levels will result in these bacteria decreasing in numbers while those types that thrive at lower levels will begin to increase in number. During the change over both bacteria are present and functioning.
 
What this means for tanks and cycling is that even when a bacterial product does not contain the type/strain of AOB (or NOB) that will ultimately come to colonize our tanks and handle the cycling chores, that bacteria will function for some time before they begin to downsize in numbers and are replaced by the ones that will dominate. That is what the research by Hovanec et. al showed. So products like Stability which contain no live bacteria or Quick start which contain those types not shown to persist in tanks over time (as well as many of the others) may act as a partial bridge to get a tank from the start of a cycle to the end point.
 
I see no benefit to using any of these products not proven to contain bacteria that will persist over time in a fw aquarium if one is doing a fishless cycle. Under these conditions I am not aware of a single scientific study that indicates they get a tank fully cycled significantly faster than not using them. Using one of the products shown to contain bacteria found in tanks long term certainly will speed a fishless cycle and by use enough and it can be a few days. Or use media/gravel from an established tank and you will also speed things up. 
 
On the other hand, if one is stuck having to cycle with fish or one makes this election in spite of the evidence to go fishless as the best choice, then these "non-proven" products may have a place. They would certainly help to reduce ammonia levels. For the person totally lost in a fish in cycle and not able to learn what must be learned to do one properly, it may be a "magic elixer" because it will work somewhat over the short term.
 
However, I again find myself not wanting to use the products for this purpose either. I know I can manage ammonia by managing the NH3 component of total ammonia. I can keep ammonia levels at the optimal top level and keep fish safe which means the time needed to get all the required AOB will be the shortest. But the problem with the "wrong stuff" is also with the NOB. I want the proper lower affinity nitrospira not the winogradski. And I also know one can manage nitrite with chloride making it only necessary to hold nitrite levels  securely below those which would stall the cycle by harming or the bacteria.
 
So if one knows the proper methods for managing ammonia levels and the use of chloride, what would the benefit be of using the "wrong stuff" products in a fish in cycle?
 
The makers of what I call the "wrong stuff" are going to argue their products do work etc. My point is not that they might not appear to have or actually to have some shorter term effect, but rather that none of them show any links to any research which shows what is in their product will persist in a tank for many months or years as the dominant nitrifiers. I have not read anything close to all the literature out there on this topic, but I have looked at an awful lot of research. I have yet to see anything that shows what is in any of the other products. Only the manufacturer can state or refuse to state this. Of course the Dr. Tim's product has full disclosure. Quick start lets you dig it out in their MSDS. SeaChem stays mum.
 
I am still waiting for any of the major players in the aquarium industry to point to stringently peer reviewed research that supports the fact that what is in their products is in tanks over time. If anybody knows of such, please feel free to offer it up as I would love to see it. It just seems to me if there was such science, their marketing effort would be shouting it as loudly as possible. Dr. Hovanec may have done the research that identified the bacteria he packages, but he did not do it alone and was not even the lead researcher on one of the 3 studies. These papers have been cited numerous times since their publication and to my knowledge there is no subsequent science which shows any other bacteria has supplanted, replaced or been considered a functional alternative for those ones identified in the Hovanec related works.
 
In an ideal world somebody out there would design and conduct a proper piece of research to sample from fw aquariums across the globe to get bacteria out of them with the purpose to identify what is there. My bet is there may be more than one strain but that they would still be pretty similar. And then one could compare those to what is in the bottles products. Unfortunately, the research would have to confirm independently what these were. The problem is the cost of this would be enormous and who in their right mind would underwrite it? It is for this reason that ther are so many different products out there and what so few of them actually work or are of any long term benefit.
 
Again I am curious what those who are interested in this topic think, especially those who have used products I might describe as the "wrong stuff." Aside from saying "It worked for me." is there science to back this up?