Bacterial Additives...

[anon02]

Hi WD, it`s good to speak to you again,
The thinking behind my comment is from tests I did with my q tank after each batch of fish were transferred to my community tank, after fishless cycling with 5ppm ammonia I quarantined my fish in 6 batches of 8 fish in a 10 g tank for between a month and 6 weeks, after each batch I tested the filter with ammonia to get a feel what was happening (being a novice) and I was surprised at how far the bacterial colony had died back yet was still perfecly able to handle the bioload. When I tested with ammonia on each occasion the filter was only able to reduce about 0.5ppm in 12 hours much to my surprise.
After reading Dr Tims papers and going through my own fishless cycling under your guidance I can see where the 5ppm benchmark would come from for a newly qualified filter, but I dont think that such a benchmark would be necessary for a filter in a reasonably stocked tank. I suppose the question is are we looking to create a capable working filter in a shortened cycling period or are we looking to draw a comparison with a filter that is tailored to have a capacity which would hardly ever be required in practice
I am not a proponent of bottled products but I would consider using one if it could produce a filter that would reduce a 1ppm dosage down to zero in 12 hours after the second or third dose, any longer and I would consider that the BB was not having an effect and I was in a fish in cycle

 

[eaglesaquarium]

Hi WD, it`s good to speak to you again,
The thinking behind my comment is from tests I did with my q tank after each batch of fish were transferred to my community tank, after fishless cycling with 5ppm ammonia I quarantined my fish in 6 batches of 8 fish in a 10 g tank for between a month and 6 weeks, after each batch I tested the filter with ammonia to get a feel what was happening (being a novice) and I was surprised at how far the bacterial colony had died back yet was still perfecly able to handle the bioload. When I tested with ammonia on each occasion the filter was only able to reduce about 0.5ppm in 12 hours much to my surprise.
After reading Dr Tims papers and going through my own fishless cycling under your guidance I can see where the 5ppm benchmark would come from for a newly qualified filter, but I dont think that such a benchmark would be necessary for a filter in a reasonably stocked tank. I suppose the question is are we looking to create a capable working filter in a shortened cycling period or are we looking to draw a comparison with a filter that is tailored to have a capacity which would hardly ever be required in practice
I am not a proponent of bottled products but I would consider using one if it could produce a filter that would reduce a 1ppm dosage down to zero in 12 hours after the second or third dose, any longer and I would consider that the BB was not having an effect and I was in a fish in cycle

I agree with you that the capacity that the fishless cycle is designed to "duplicate" seems far above what any reasonable fish keeper would put into a tank, but that is the entire reason for having the benchmark that high. By placing that level of ammonia load onto the filter and having it able to sustain bringing those levels down in 12 hours for a full week means that even if a significant portion of the bacteria are lost somehow prior to adding fish to the tank, the filter should not have any problem processing the amount of waste the fish produce. I believe the goal is to avoid "minicycles" when the fish are added, which is something that always occurs in a fish-in cycle upon the introduction of the next batch of fish.

So, the goal for my proposed test is to do a regular fishless cycle, WITH the BB in the hope of having the cycle be much shorter than the many logs on this board where the time drags on to 2 months or more. I have a limited observation window compared to waterdrop on these fishless cycle logs, but it would seem to me that 45 days is about the shortest amount of time for a brand new filter - minus mature media being added. If the product can reduce that to 21 days, it would be pretty compelling, even as a single data point, that the products do in fact work. If the time is reduced to match the same amount of time as adding mature media to your tank that would be proof as well that the bacteria in the bottle are able to establish themselves exactly the same as the "natural" bacteria from a mature filter.


You propose testing the product more in line with the fish-in cycle criteria, and that seems to be a worthwhile test as well. I would be extremely interested in your results. If it could process 1ppm in 12 hours (or even 0.5ppm in 12 hours) from the beginning that would also be pretty good proof that it works, HOWEVER, that ability must be sustained on a daily basis beyond the time that you add the product. Many of these products fail as soon as they are no longer added, which implies to me that the reason is more chemical than biological. But, the consumer sees the levels dropping while adding the product, buys fish assuming the product works, and then stops adding the product. Then, they find themselves in a mess - this is what I have read as accounts of "Cycle" which is why it was not one of the original products that I was going to test. If you perform this experiment, please post your results, I would be very interested in how the product works under that scenario.

 

[anon02]

If I were playing devils` advocate I would say the the manufacturers` claim is to produce a working filter, not a filter that could reduce 5ppm ammonia dosage in 12 hours. I feel that for any results to be valid the test should be conducted in the spirit intended by the manufacturer

 

[eaglesaquarium]

If I were playing devils` advocate I would say the the manufacturers` claim is to produce a working filter, not a filter that could reduce 5ppm ammonia dosage in 12 hours. I feel that for any results to be valid the test should be conducted in the spirit intended by the manufacturer

As a member of the jury, who is really trying to determine the products effectiveness, I am taking their claims and putting them to the test on a much larger scale to get an easier to read data set. I really do want the product to work quickly. I do not want to have to go through a 10 week process of a fishless cycle. But, at the same time, I don't want to put fish at risk either.


Well, manufacturer claims are a little stronger than you are saying.


Nutrafin's Cycle claims:

Concentrated bacterial formulation rapidly matures new aquariums. Carefully selected strains of beneficial bacteria, including Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter, actively reduce both ammonia and nitrite to prevent fish loss.

How do they define fish loss? That's a pretty broad statement.

Dr. Tim's One and Only claims:

Unlike many other bacterial additives, fish can be added immediately after use. Eliminates new tank syndrome, instantly creates a biofilter, and naturally removes toxic ammonia and nitrite.

With this product, you would expect that the biofilter could handle a fishless cycle ammonia load in pretty short order. It may take a few days to reach a high enough number of the bacteria, but it should still be DRASTICALLY faster than a regular fishless cycle.

Tetra's Safe Start claims:

The live bacteria begins working immediately to create a safe and healthy environment that allows the immediate addition of fish. SafeStart significantly accelerates biological filtration and keeps ammonia and nitrite concentrations below harmful levels.

The statement that is "significantly accelerates biological filtration" is a testable statement. And that is what I intend to test. A significant acceleration as I would define it means that the product needs to be as fast as (if not faster than) rinsing a mature filter in the new tank, or adding a small piece of established filter media to the new tank. If it takes anywhere near the regular time for a fishless cycle, then its claim is rather unfounded. The bottle I am using is supposed to treat 30 gallons, so I can give it 3 times the recommended dosage to see the results. I think that the method I am using is going to give the product every possible chance to succeed. Proper pH, proper temp, plenty of filtration, plenty of oxygenation, etc.



Looking closer at what they are really claiming is that the fish won't suffer, and will "survive" the cycling period. But, it is very difficult to determine the true effectiveness of the product on FISH. They claim to help stop "fish loss", but what exactly does that mean? Does that mean that the fish won't die immediately (within a week or two), or does it mean that the fish will live a full and healthy life in that tank (up to 10 years or more)? The claim is too hard to test realistically, IMO. But, using the product to kickstart and accelerate a fishless cycle is a much easier test. IF, the product is capable of processing 0.5 ppm of ammonia immediately as you suspect, then the abundance of ammonia and other proper conditions should lead to a population explosion of the bacteria, and the initial drop of ammonia from 4-5 ppm should happen in as little as 3 days (considering the growth rate of the bacteria). Secondly, the nitrite levels should remain relatively low, or also nonexistent. Granted, there may be an initial die off of the N-bacs, because there may not be sufficient nitrite to sustain them, but once the A-bacs get going, there would be a lot available and the N-bacs should multiply rapidly. This entire process should take about a 1 or a little more, IF as they claim, the bacteria are live and able to process ammonia immediately. If not, then the process will take longer and if it takes as long as a standard fishless cycle without mature media or any bacterial additives, then the claims are pretty much empty. The real question left to be answered is: how fast is fast enough to verify the claims? Does it need to happen in under a week? Turbo Start claims that it works in about 3 or 4 DAYS!!! That's more than 10 times faster than most fishless cycles take. Would a two week process (prior to the "qualifying week") be short enough to verify the claims?


********************************************************************

In other news, my supplies are estimated to arrive sometime on Saturday. So, with that being the case, it won't be long before we have at least some real data to discuss. I am getting two internal sponge filters that are air pump driven. One is rated up to 50 gallons, the other is rated up to only 10 gallons. I am thinking of using both simultaneously on the 10 gallon tank I am borrowing from my brother. The 50 gallon rated sponge filter is so that I can jump start my 56 gallon tank to come in September. The 10 gallon filter is one that I am gifting to my brother for his African Dwarf Frog tadpoles. I figure if I can give it to him pre-cycled, then he doesn't have to concern himself with it, and won't have to worry about the tiny tads being sucked up by the filter either.

I also will be doing this WITHOUT a substrate. This tank is going to be moved eventually back to my brother's house, and adding substrate just to take it out seems like an awful lot of work for no reason.


(Eventually, my 56 gallon tank will have both a Marineland Penguin 350 and the sponge filter in it. I plan to keep the sponge filter in the tank to continue aeration and add a little extra flow to the tank, as well as have a cycled filter on hand at all times, in case of emergency. The Penguin filter should be enough for the tank by itself, but if I need to set up an emergency quarantine tank/container, I at least have something ready to go!)

 

[TwoTankAmin]

Why not use Google scholar to see if you can find out who discovered the exact bacteria that actually do the cycling work in aquariums.

Or save time and just Google Dr. Timothy Hovanec.

But then that would take you to the one product that actually contains those bacteria.

So just start here I guess Hovanec Consulting, Inc.

 

[eaglesaquarium]

Why not use Google scholar to see if you can find out who discovered the exact bacteria that actually do the cycling work in aquariums.

Or save time and just Google Dr. Timothy Hovanec.

But then that would take you to the one product that actually contains those bacteria.

So just start here I guess Hovanec Consulting, Inc.

Dr. Tim has a product out, called "One and Only". The original product on the market was "BioSpira" but that product no longer requires refrigeration (neither does Dr. Tim's product) and goes by the name "Safe Start". Only one product on the market still requires refrigeration, but is much harder to find - "Turbo start". The nitrifying bacteria in "Turbo Start" are not the same as "Biospira" (Nitrospira), but instead a different type that does the same thing (converts nitrite to nitrate) called nitrobacter.


The issue is not identifying the bacteria that are in the products, that is a known quantity. The issue is determining how effective they are at "cycling" a filter. There is a big difference.

 

[TwoTankAmin]

Pay attention to the begiining of the tape where he mentions public aquariums which used his product. I do believe one of those mentioned is the London Aquarium. maybe you could give them a call and ask what they think about his product.

Here is what another public aquarium said about using it to start up their 190,000 gal system.

Dr. Tim’s One and Only” was crucial in the setup and cycling of our facility. We were up against a very short timeline and with the aid of Dr. Tim’s bacteria we didn’t need to worry about massive water changes. During the initial stocking our ammonia only reached 1ppm for four days and then dropped to below .1ppm within less than a week. Nitrites never reached above .57ppm and were gone within 10 days. I wouldn’t do another startup without it.

B. Dirk Westfall
Displays Curator
SEA LIFE Arizona
Tempe, AZ 85282

.

 

[eaglesaquarium]

quote omitted...to aid reading the thread.

I appreciate this information, and wish that you had posted it prior to my order of Safe Start. I ordered that, since it was the "original" product. It was this product that Dr. Tim first helped to develop, and hopefully it works as well as it claims. If it does, then great. Maybe all these fishless cycling logs can be cut down to a week or so, instead of going on for two months or more. We shall see. My stuff should be here Saturday, and then I will start the cycle with "Safe Start". If it doesn't work as hoped, then maybe I will try Dr. Tim's for my 56 gallon tank, although I might just move my cycled filter over as I currently am planning on doing.

 

[Ronananator]

what im gonna do is get a bucket fill it with bio balls / bio noods and then fill it 2 the top with filter start product and daily dose with ammonia and it should work like a charm

 

[waterdrop]

Hi WD, it`s good to speak to you again,
The thinking behind my comment is from tests I did with my q tank after each batch of fish were transferred to my community tank, after fishless cycling with 5ppm ammonia I quarantined my fish in 6 batches of 8 fish in a 10 g tank for between a month and 6 weeks, after each batch I tested the filter with ammonia to get a feel what was happening (being a novice) and I was surprised at how far the bacterial colony had died back yet was still perfecly able to handle the bioload. When I tested with ammonia on each occasion the filter was only able to reduce about 0.5ppm in 12 hours much to my surprise.
After reading Dr Tims papers and going through my own fishless cycling under your guidance I can see where the 5ppm benchmark would come from for a newly qualified filter, but I dont think that such a benchmark would be necessary for a filter in a reasonably stocked tank. I suppose the question is are we looking to create a capable working filter in a shortened cycling period or are we looking to draw a comparison with a filter that is tailored to have a capacity which would hardly ever be required in practice
I am not a proponent of bottled products but I would consider using one if it could produce a filter that would reduce a 1ppm dosage down to zero in 12 hours after the second or third dose, any longer and I would consider that the BB was not having an effect and I was in a fish in cycle

Hi anon, good to talk to you again too! My desire for 5ppm capability came not from just wanting to repeat what RDD had homed in on for getting a full immediate stocking up and going but really for the entirely different reason that over hundreds of cases we kept seeing that not having enough "headroom" above what the final steady-state processing capability was key to getting post-introduction mini-spikes or other problems. I believe this feeling was shared among me, BTT (BackToTropical) and MW (Miss Wiggle.) We just kept asking ourselves, what is the difference in our cases that have problems after the first stocking versus those that are rock solid. And the difference always seemed to be this "headroom".. the fact that the filter had proved it could process a lot both in terms of -more- ppm than needed by quite a bit and in terms of doing it for a week rather than trusting it after a day. I completely agree with you that real ammonia levels are way lower after the die-back, but not having a -big- die-back was exactly the thing we finally homed in on that really cemented us on the qualifying week and the good solid 4-5ppm.

I guess I've never had much interest in whether a BB might enhance a fish-in cycle because I hardly ever see any ammonia or nitrite in a well-done fish-in cycle anyway, just done straight without BB. And it was never the problem I'm interested in solving! The problem I always want to solve is how to take rank beginners and have their fish both not be exposed to the small ups and downs of fish-in but more importantly to just not have the fish exposed to the risk of the beginner understandably misunderstanding some of the aspects and making mistakes. For the beginner problem, the fish-in solution, whether BB or not BB is just not interesting because I just think it takes a somewhat more experienced fishkeeper to execute a good fish-in cycle and not make mistakes. It can be done of course, but the interesting part when I came back to the hobby was realizing it no longer -needs- to be done like it used to.

So for me, the interest in a BB has always been really to see how many days on average it could cut out of a standard ammonia fishless cycle since I think that's the really exciting development that has happened since the 1980's. I mean, there are lot's of exciting developments in the sense that we just know a lot more but that one really stood out to me, having been a hobbyist from the 50's, 60's and 70's.

~~waterdrop~~

 

[Bignose]

This thread has been very good. My only comment at this time is that if an experiment is to be set up, I've done some calculations to estimate how much ammonia a fish makes.

from: http/www.fishforums.net/index.php?/topic/242818-how-much-bioload-does-1-fish-produce

Fish consume 1-2% of their mass per day, though the amount of food being fed is a primary determinant.

Calculate the amount of protein the food, 40% is typical

16 % of proteins are nitrogen

(fish mass)*0.02*0.40*0.16 = mass of nitrogenous waste excreted per day

Most typically stocked tanks will end up in the neighborhood of 1.5 to 2.5 ppm of ammonia per day, and I've calculated a few examples that come up to 4 ppm per day.

I strongly agree that 5 ppm is an excellent target for a typical fishless cycling. Being conservative is very good for these situations. And, in the end, the colony will adjust its size down so that their consumption rate is equal to the production rate of the fish.

 

[KISSfn]

Pay attention to the begiining of the tape where he mentions public aquariums which used his product. I do believe one of those mentioned is the London Aquarium. maybe you could give them a call and ask what they think about his product.

Here is what another public aquarium said about using it to start up their 190,000 gal system.

Dr. Tim's One and Only" was crucial in the setup and cycling of our facility. We were up against a very short timeline and with the aid of Dr. Tim's bacteria we didn't need to worry about massive water changes. During the initial stocking our ammonia only reached 1ppm for four days and then dropped to below .1ppm within less than a week. Nitrites never reached above .57ppm and were gone within 10 days. I wouldn't do another startup without it.

B. Dirk Westfall
Displays Curator
SEA LIFE Arizona
Tempe, AZ 85282

.

I don't need to call anybody to ask them what they think of his product because I've tried it. It does not work period. I watched that interview first and was impressed. I read the testimonials and was impressed. So much so that I ordered his product and had it shipped next day air. Bottom line- 9 days after adding no drop in ammonia levels. Whatever he's giving the London Aquarium is not what he sold to me for $48 including shipping. I'm no longer impressed.

 

[KISSfn]

Seeing as I have more money than sense I purchased Fritz Zyme Turbo Start 700 yesterday. I will be sure to let you know if it is as useless as Tetra's Safe Start and Dr.Tim's One and Only...
Seeing that it is made in the great state of Texas I have high hopes for Fritz's product. Where I purchased it did have it in a refrigerator so that seemed to be a good thing. When I added some to my tank it did produce a tremendous cloud of something. Whereas the Tetra was like water and Dr. Tim's was like pink colored water.

 

[eaglesaquarium]

Seeing as I have more money than sense I purchased Fritz Zyme Turbo Start 700 yesterday. I will be sure to let you know if it is as useless as Tetra's Safe Start and Dr.Tim's One and Only...
Seeing that it is made in the great state of Texas I have high hopes for Fritz's product. Where I purchased it did have it in a refrigerator so that seemed to be a good thing. When I added some to my tank it did produce a tremendous cloud of something. Whereas the Tetra was like water and Dr. Tim's was like pink colored water.

If you could post a log of ammonia and nitrite here (or in a new thread that would be GREAT!



I think it is supposed to cycle a fish-in cycle in 5 days or less. Having a log of the levels of ammonia/nitrite before addition of the product and over the course of the next 5 days would be GREAT.


Safe Start by Tetra should arrive to my house on Saturday, so I will be logging it starting on Sunday at the latest. (I will update the first post to keep it easier to find for folks. If you post your log in here, I will add that to the first post - giving you all the credit of course - so that folks can do a comparison. Will this be a new fishless cycle, new fish-in, or a continuation of a previously started cycle?)

 

[KISSfn]

Sounds good. Mine is a continuation of a fish in cycle with 3 Tiger Barbs and 3 Green Barbs in a 50 gallon tank. Readings prior to adding Turbo Start were 1mg/l Ammonia, 0 Nitrite and PH 7.6. I will update later today after 24 hours have elapsed from initial dose.