Do These Cycle Boosters Actually Work?

[RustedKnight]

Thanks for the welcome.

I've read it is possible to create a "dormant" state in bacteria by colonising bottles with another strain of bacteria, the two strains work together, somehow creating some form of aeration, though on a microscopic scale.

I'm also looking all over the net, and finding very high positive results for tetra safe start.

Edit Also apprently it's been scientifically proven (yet to find the evidence though) that safe start has a room temperature shelf life of 6 months, over a year if refridgerated.

 

[Timmy_Bee]

yeah i saw good results for Safe start (not for any other product though) although some seem to be with the addition of seeded media, so i didn't really see the point.

Please try not to just spew things you've heard along the chinese telephone, if you don't have any personal experience with it, or at least have a friend who has experience with it. I don't want to be just chasing rumor or just going off of what the bottle says.

Again, an apology to the OP for completely ignoring the 'personal experience' thing

 

[RustedKnight]

OK, not bad..

My own personal results from Nutrafin Cyclebooster.

Picked this up off a shelf, its been in the house for atleast a month, used it 4 days ago to set up a hospital tank.

Inhabited from the get go with a small shoal of tetra's and a guppy. Hardly hardy fish for a brand new tank.

I was away for most of these 4 days, so apparently the missus forgot to water change it :eyeroll: so these are results from;

tank being set up 4 days ago, brand new filter, brand new gravel, used nutrafin cycle booster. No water changes at all (not my fault)

No3 - 25ppm
No2 - 2ppm
Ammonia - 0.25

I'd say thats working....

 

[Timmy_Bee]

we could really do with running water tests on the bottle. I wonder whether there would already be levels of NO2, NO3 and NH3 (is that ammonia, i forget)?

 

[RustedKnight]

we could really do with running water tests on the bottle. I wonder whether there would already be levels of NO2, NO3 and NH3 (is that ammonia, i forget)?

Well i still have a small amount left in the bottle, explain how you'd like me to test it.

 

[Timmy_Bee]

well i doubt our test kits are any way near accurate enough. im guessing each test would be off the scale.
Unless you could dilute one drop into say 100ml tap water and test that?

How many ml in a bottle? how many litres in your tank? if you could work out the same dilution on a tiny scale and test that, maybe we could get a result? no idea.

 

[RustedKnight]

well i doubt our test kits are any way near accurate enough. im guessing each test would be off the scale.
Unless you could dilute one drop into say 100ml tap water and test that?

How many ml in a bottle? how many litres in your tank? if you could work out the same dilution on a tiny scale and test that, maybe we could get a result? no idea.

Tank is tiny, 20 litres.

And the bottle I have is 150ml.

I can put 1 drop into a 100ml easily enough. I have a 1ml pipette for plant food I can use, so I can add in relative accuracy. (obvious i'll give it a thorough wash out before use)

I don't like seeing things being slagged off without some good evidence behind it, so i'm trying to add some hard evidence to the fact that, these things can and do work.

Certainly worked for me so far in this hospital tank, and the same stuff had the missus' 60litre tank completely cycled in 5 days.

 

[the biffster]

i would like to see the out come
of hat test

 

[RustedKnight]

Ok i'll figure out the correct dosage in ml and run a test when i'm home later (off to pick the missus up soon)

I'm expecting low results though as these are supposedly full of bacteria that use up the ammonia and nitrates, but could be very wrong indeed.

Quick question, do you want me to use tap safe in the water before test, as I normally would for my fish water, or do you want pure tap water??

 

[Curiosity101]

Your 'test' isn't scientifically acceptable... not saying it doesn't seem reasonably reliable. But it isn't reliable enough for proper conclusions to be drawn from it.

To test the bottled bacteria you need a control. Otherwise the only conclusion you could possibly make is 'it seemed to work, but there may be other causes for a faster cycle'. Which tbh isn't a conclusion imo.

Also, in the hospital tank did you use...

An old filter with new media?
Any pre used substrate?
A pre used tank?
Any equipment/decor/plants that had come from another tank....
There are alot of variable that could contribute.

To test properly you need to set two containers/tanks up in exactly the same way where the only thing that differs is that one has booster and one doesn't.

So you need a brand new container/tank for each.
Brand new, exactly the same, filters for each tank.
And to get all your water from the same place (tap).
And to be careful to use only new equipment which hasn't touched any of your existing tanks...syphons, buckets... etc.
Also you'd need to dose with the exact same amount of ammonia (so not fish in).
And you'd need to continue to test for the following couple of weeks to make sure it was infact the correct n bacs that had grown.

THEN you can make a proper comparison and conclude whether the product worked or not.

 

[RustedKnight]

Your 'test' isn't scientifically acceptable... not saying it doesn't seem reasonably reliable. But it isn't reliable enough for proper conclusions to be drawn from it.

To test the bottled bacteria you need a control. Otherwise the only conclusion you could possibly make is 'it seemed to work, but there may be other causes for a faster cycle'. Which tbh isn't a conclusion imo.

Also, in the hospital tank did you use...

An old filter with new media?
Any pre used substrate?
A pre used tank?
Any equipment/decor/plants that had come from another tank....
There are alot of variable that could contribute.

To test properly you need to set two containers/tanks up in exactly the same way where the only thing that differs is that one has booster and one doesn't.

So you need a brand new container/tank for each.
Brand new, exactly the same, filters for each tank.
And to get all your water from the same place (tap).
And to be careful to use only new equipment which hasn't touched any of your existing tanks...syphons, buckets... etc.
Also you'd need to dose with the exact same amount of ammonia (so not fish in).
And you'd need to continue to test for the following couple of weeks to make sure it was infact the correct n bacs that had grown.

THEN you can make a proper comparison and conclude whether the product worked or not.

Tank was ex marine, thoroughly thoroughly cleaned out, left to sit for months upon end, cleaned out again then started out for tropical.

Filter new.

Gravel new.

Some Watersprite came in from missus' 60l tank, not a huge amount though.

And honestly, scientifically acceptable? To do something that is scientifically acceptable would require endless numbers of replica tanks all running at the same time, and that just simply isn't feasable for ANYONE, so talking about scientifically acceptable is just utter cowpat, sorry, needs to be said.

I'm simply posting my results to show what effect this "cycle booster" is having on my tanks. I was originally a doubter. Didn't think it would work, figured it was a scam. I'm completely turned around by the product.

Also, partners tank when set up was brand new tank, brand new filter, brand new substrate, I only gave her some watersprite (and I highly doubt the moving of watersprite from one tank to another would seriously effect a cycle)

 

[Curiosity101]

I agree, so as a single person (as I said earlier in this thread, though not to you). Your results as an invidivual are insignificant.

But to be worth anything, even in relation to all the other results, you need a control. You can't make any conclusions if you can't rule out all the obvious variables.

 

[RustedKnight]

I agree, so as a single person (as I said earlier in this thread, though not to you). Your results as an invidivual are insignificant.

But to be worth anything, even in relation to all the other results, you need a control. You can't make any conclusions if you can't rule out all the obvious variables.

So what your saying is;

Its impossible for us to prove our results scientifically, so you can instantly write it all off and say this stuff doesn't work.
Therefore this thread is pointless, as nothing can be proven.

OR

You could back away from the scientifical, and let individual results be allowed for analysis between normal fishkeepers and allow people to come to the conclusion of whether it works or not?
Comprende?

-=-=-

On a slightly off topic note, it's scientifically proven that smoking causes cancer. It's also scientifically proven that smoking doesn't cause cancer.
It's been noted by many top doctors that most patients who die from cancer, and have been smokers, would likely have died of cancer if they hadn't smoked at all.
There's also several cases where people have been kept alive by nicotine, long after they're body would have naturally succumbed.

Scientifical analysis doesn't always prove true.

 

[raptorrex]

No3 - 25ppm
No2 - 2ppm
Ammonia - 0.25

I'd say thats working....

on what basis? nothing here gives any evidence the product works. mind you if your control is different (oh no control?) no evidence then.

thing is, wherever you look. the is no proper evidence these things work. even PFK stated, whilst it might. the was still large amounts of ammonia and nitrates in the tank. as one member put it. "just coz your fish are alive, does not mean the thing is working".
nobody, especially the marketing company, has offered the slightest evidence that the product works. this is, usually, because they could not produce any convincing evidence themselves. lets face it. if there were convincing evidence, do you not think they would have published it? of course they would. another "placebo" fish keeping product. still as long as you think it works, who cares? well anybody else fooled by your post. and that is wrong.

 

[Curiosity101]

still as long as you think it works, who cares? well anybody else fooled by your post. and that is wrong.

Exactly the reason that I have continued to post. My opinion on these things doesn't matter tbh, I'll either buy it or I wont (although I never would buy it as I have other tanks, know people with tanks and see no where near enough evidence to support it ever being worth buying).

But the fact you're ignoring all fundamental scientific principles yet still trying to say you can conclude something... although it sounds good cause you can use lots of big words and make it sound sciencey. It's not. You can't conclude anything, but people could be fooled.

Also medical cancer genetics... There is no mutation in 'blah' = cancer of the 'blah'. If it were that straight forwards then people would be screened at birth. It is a fact that smoking increases the likelihood of cancer as it is a mutagen. For every 'x' number of cigarettes it has been found people have an average number of new mutations in a cell. Some mutations will cause no change, some cause cell death and a very few will result in the cell becoming a cancer cell. But that's not to say everyone who smokes will end up with cancer, but equally it's not to say if you don't smoke that you don't have a genetic predisposition to lung cancer. It's not as cut and dry as you seem to want to make it sound.