Hi all ,I am new to all this . I got a 29 gal tank which I am going to set it up in a few days so I read a lot about api quick start . Seems like everyone likes it . They say you can add some fish from get go . Is this good or bad ? Thanks for your help I really need it .
Api Quick Start For A New Tank
- Thread starter bassdawg
- Start date
The December FOTM Contest Poll is open!
🏆 Click to vote! 🏆
EllieJellyEllie
Fish Addict
)
TwoTankAmin
Fish Connoisseur
Use Dr Tim's One and Only, of you cannot find it, use Tetra's FafeStart. Follow their directions over the ones here for fishless if you do. You may need to visit their respective ssites for a comprehensive set of directions.
KirkyArcher
Fish Addict
I've come to the conclusion that most of these biological supplement products don't cycle a tank in the true sense of the word, but they do seem to make a fish in cycle a much safer option especially if you gradually and patiently introduce and increase the quantity of the fish you intend to stock. I've always "fish in cycled" my tanks and used cycling products that don't contain the same bacteria cultures that Tetra Safe start and Dr. Tims contain, and never lost a fish nor witnessed any fish suffering or stressing as a result.
I cycled fishless using api quick start in around 6 weeks whereas my previous fish in cycle without using any quick start took 4 weeks.
It Didn't do anything good that I noticed and certainly didn't instant cycle anything.
No harm in trying it but you'll still have to do all the tests and follow the same cycle rules and procedures anyways.
It Didn't do anything good that I noticed and certainly didn't instant cycle anything.
No harm in trying it but you'll still have to do all the tests and follow the same cycle rules and procedures anyways.
TwoTankAmin
Fish Connoisseur
All this anecdotal discussion is nice. But in the end it gets really simple. Either you can believe what the science has shown over decades, that the primary nitrifying bacteria are the autotrophs or you can choose to fight against 100+ years of research and claim that the earth is not round and you will fall off the edge.
The bacteria and the archaea that are responsible for nitrification do not form spores to reproduce, they divide. Now if you accept this bit of knowledge, then it becomes difficult to accept that any bacterial starter product which states it contains no live bacteria, only spores can be providing what is needed for an established cycled tank. My favorite example of this is Stability. Even though SeaChem knows that the proper bacteriaa re the autotrophs, you have to use a team of cyber bloodhounds to discover where on their site they admit this. Yet how many times have you read a post staying how well this product helped to cycle a tank?
The one piece of real research I have found that actually did some investigating of another starter product was this one:
Nitrospira- Like Bacteria Associated with Nitrite Oxidation in Freshwater Aquaria. Applied and Environmental Microbiology Vol. 64, No. 1: 258-264. Hovanec, T. A., L. T. Taylor, A. Blakis and E. F. DeLong. 1998.
In this study they tested the leading bottled product at the time (one still sold today) and basically concluded that it did speed up the onset of things but had no longer term effect in terms of reducing cycling time. Moreover, the nitrite oxidizing bacteria which came in the bottle were not in the tank at the end of the cycle but had been replaced by the 'proper" ones. Over 152 subsequent studies have cited the above, you can find them here http
/scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=12645801936650989137&as_sdt=5,33&sciodt=0,33&hl=en
So why is there no comprehensive study testing the efficacy of various products on the market? The answers are simple, there is nobody willing to pay for it. You have to analyze the contents of each bottle before using it, then you have to cycle tanks with it vs there others vs controls. The cost of such a study would be very expensive and exactly who would pay for it. And then what would happen if such research concluded that most of the starter products out there were pretty much useless? Do you think the major companies would simply apologize to the hobby for selling their stuff for years and remove their products from the market?
But the really revealing research that supports the above comes from other parts of the world of water, drinking water plants. Why is such research so important? Think about how hobbyists have cycled tanks for decades. Where exactly have the starter bacteria come from for all those years before fishless cycling came to the fore? Even today, for folks who do not use either a bottled bacteria product or seeding from an established tank, from where does their initial bacteria come? And the answer is it comes from our tap water.
/www.researchgate.net/publication/11005204_Diversity_of_nitrifying_bacteria_in_full-scale_chloraminated_distribution_systems/file/72e7e52a14dc32de6b.pdf
The real deal breaker for all this for me is what science one can find to support any of the the product claims. There is a ton of research out there looking at nitrifying bacteria, but find anything that supports the effectiveness of the specific bacteria contained in products like Stability, Quick Start, Cycle, etc. There are many products out there but there is no independent research to support their use. The best you will see is "internal" unpublished research which along with a token gets one on a subway.
The bacteria and the archaea that are responsible for nitrification do not form spores to reproduce, they divide. Now if you accept this bit of knowledge, then it becomes difficult to accept that any bacterial starter product which states it contains no live bacteria, only spores can be providing what is needed for an established cycled tank. My favorite example of this is Stability. Even though SeaChem knows that the proper bacteriaa re the autotrophs, you have to use a team of cyber bloodhounds to discover where on their site they admit this. Yet how many times have you read a post staying how well this product helped to cycle a tank?
The one piece of real research I have found that actually did some investigating of another starter product was this one:
Nitrospira- Like Bacteria Associated with Nitrite Oxidation in Freshwater Aquaria. Applied and Environmental Microbiology Vol. 64, No. 1: 258-264. Hovanec, T. A., L. T. Taylor, A. Blakis and E. F. DeLong. 1998.
In this study they tested the leading bottled product at the time (one still sold today) and basically concluded that it did speed up the onset of things but had no longer term effect in terms of reducing cycling time. Moreover, the nitrite oxidizing bacteria which came in the bottle were not in the tank at the end of the cycle but had been replaced by the 'proper" ones. Over 152 subsequent studies have cited the above, you can find them here http
/scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=12645801936650989137&as_sdt=5,33&sciodt=0,33&hl=enSo why is there no comprehensive study testing the efficacy of various products on the market? The answers are simple, there is nobody willing to pay for it. You have to analyze the contents of each bottle before using it, then you have to cycle tanks with it vs there others vs controls. The cost of such a study would be very expensive and exactly who would pay for it. And then what would happen if such research concluded that most of the starter products out there were pretty much useless? Do you think the major companies would simply apologize to the hobby for selling their stuff for years and remove their products from the market?
But the really revealing research that supports the above comes from other parts of the world of water, drinking water plants. Why is such research so important? Think about how hobbyists have cycled tanks for decades. Where exactly have the starter bacteria come from for all those years before fishless cycling came to the fore? Even today, for folks who do not use either a bottled bacteria product or seeding from an established tank, from where does their initial bacteria come? And the answer is it comes from our tap water.
from http
/www.researchgate.net/publication/11005204_Diversity_of_nitrifying_bacteria_in_full-scale_chloraminated_distribution_systems/file/72e7e52a14dc32de6b.pdfThe real deal breaker for all this for me is what science one can find to support any of the the product claims. There is a ton of research out there looking at nitrifying bacteria, but find anything that supports the effectiveness of the specific bacteria contained in products like Stability, Quick Start, Cycle, etc. There are many products out there but there is no independent research to support their use. The best you will see is "internal" unpublished research which along with a token gets one on a subway.
Similar threads
Most reactions
-
379 -
204 -
202 -
191 -
188 -
177 -
157 -
156 -
141 -
109 -
94 -
92 -
83 -
82 -
78