Interesting Email From Tetra

[JMcQueen]

Hi,

Before I say anything, Im posting this for info only because I found it quite interesting and Im sure others might do too. Its not intended to start a discussion on the benefits/drawbacks of Safestart or Tetra as a company etc. I have a lot of respect for Tetra and their products and dont want this to degenerate into a public slanging match.

So, I emailed them a while back about the use of Safestart in a fishless cycle and this is their reply:


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

Dear Jason,

Thank you for your email, firstly I must apologise for the huge delay in responding to your message. We strive to answer all customer emails within 2 working days, but sometimes this is simply not possible. I am very sorry for the disappointment and inconvenience the lack of response to your message must have caused.

SafeStart would work absolutely fine in a fish-less cycled system, the nitrifying bacteria in the bottle (Principally Nitrosomonas and Nitrospira), are not fussy where their ammonia and nitrite food source comes from, fish or an ammonium chloride solution makes no difference to them!

On a side note, I am fairly critical of the fishless cycling system, I appreciate from a fish welfare perspective it seems initially preferable, however there I have some concerns that this method of maturing an aquarium is concerned only with one biochemical pathway (ammonia to nitrate – and yes, I concede its quite an important one). A matured aquarium contains a plethora of other bacterial species concerned with the breakdown of other substrates, many of these can be grouped under the banner of the heterotrophs, those that feed on decaying organic (carbon containing), matter. These are nowhere near as delicate as the nitrifiers and mature fairly easily in a standard ‘fish-containing’ cycling maturation. Whether they mature as well in a fishless system seems debateable…

I hope this has been of help and again please accept my apologies for the delay, if you have any further questions please email me directly at this address and I can assure you of a swifter response,

Yours sincerely and Happy Fishkeeping!

 

[matt_99]

quite interesting...

 

[ian]

yeah, tis a good response. I can see what he's saying, however he knows there product doesn't work, so the fish in cycle is the only way to make this product work. Saying that theres nothing wrong with a 'fish in' imo and he's correct when it comes to other bacterias.

 

[Assaye]

I've heard this aguement before - a fishless cycle does one thing very well but may neglect the development of other aspects of the eco-system. However, I am not convinced by the strength of the argument. As far as we know, the ammonia and nitrite in a fish-in cycle are the most dangerous aspects of the cycle and while a fishless cycle may neglect other aspects, it does mean that fish are not exposed to these chemicals that have proven to harm and kill.

This arguement is why I don't think people should stock too heavily once a tank is fishless cycled. There are other elements to a fish eco-system and we don't necessarily know whether these will harm the fish as they develop. We already know that certain species do not thrive in cycled but otherwise immature tanks.

However, I will always advocate a fishless cycle where it is possible and applicable. If we can save even a small amount of harm to fish, we should.

 

[JoshuaA]

Well this is what I think...

...dont want this to degenerate into a public slanging match.

Oh

Interesting point, however there is lots I don't understand specifically about these other bacteria he speaks of and why his product does not seem to include them either. Anyway, until I can be sure my £10 for a bottle of Tetra safe start isn't going out the window I won't use it lol.

 

[Twinklecaz]

I guess it would explain why even once you've done a good fishless cycle, some fish need you to wait a while longer (Neons for example) for the tank to mature "properly" before you add them to the tank.

 

[muelleh]

I fishless cycling a 5 gal for my betta. Will he be able to go in immediately once it is cycled?

Thanks!

 

[Corleone]

I've always put bettas in fresh out of fishless cycles. They're fairly tough little fish, the fact that they regularly hang on for months in unfiltered, let alone uncycled, tanks is a good testament to the fact. They're not particularly prone to stress or disease, which is what makes fish recommended only in mature tanks and not out of a cycle.

The email has some good points, but all the other bacteria that you want to grow in an established tank pretty much come down to more ammonia related stuff. The heterotrophic bacteria he mentions that feed on decaying matter turn fish poop, excess food, dead fish and plants, etc into ammonia (among other things). They won't mature in a fishless cycle unless you're using decaying organic matter (fish food or the shrimp method). They're important to the tank long term, but fishless cycling is about the short term. Without these bacteria, you still have a pretty good amount of ammonia in the tank, since fish release a constant stream of it from their gills as part of their breathing.

The process of establishing these bacteria is pretty benign, though. When they're not there but your ammonia eating bacteria are, the water quality doesn't deteriorate, it's just that waste doesn't decay. You can clean waste out yourself to help with that problem, and even with them there you gravel vac out a lot more of the stuff than decays anyway. The only real risk is a bacterial bloom, which can be a pain but is a lot easier to manage than a fish-in cycle.

The process of establishing your autotrophic bacteria, on the other hand, is pretty bad. Without them, everything in the tank is contributing to a decline in water quality. Plus, your heterotrophs are in the process of establishing themselevs, too, so all the potential problems with them are also present.

His logic is a pretty common political fallacy: It only solves the worst of two problems, so it's worse than solving neither.

 

[muelleh]

I've always put bettas in fresh out of fishless cycles. They're fairly tough little fish, the fact that they regularly hang on for months in unfiltered, let alone uncycled, tanks is a good testament to the fact. They're not particularly prone to stress or disease, which is what makes fish recommended only in mature tanks and not out of a cycle.

The email has some good points, but all the other bacteria that you want to grow in an established tank pretty much come down to more ammonia related stuff. The heterotrophic bacteria he mentions that feed on decaying matter turn fish poop, excess food, dead fish and plants, etc into ammonia (among other things). They won't mature in a fishless cycle unless you're using decaying organic matter (fish food or the shrimp method). They're important to the tank long term, but fishless cycling is about the short term. Without these bacteria, you still have a pretty good amount of ammonia in the tank, since fish release a constant stream of it from their gills as part of their breathing.

The process of establishing these bacteria is pretty benign, though. When they're not there but your ammonia eating bacteria are, the water quality doesn't deteriorate, it's just that waste doesn't decay. You can clean waste out yourself to help with that problem, and even with them there you gravel vac out a lot more of the stuff than decays anyway. The only real risk is a bacterial bloom, which can be a pain but is a lot easier to manage than a fish-in cycle.

The process of establishing your autotrophic bacteria, on the other hand, is pretty bad. Without them, everything in the tank is contributing to a decline in water quality. Plus, your heterotrophs are in the process of establishing themselevs, too, so all the potential problems with them are also present.

His logic is a pretty common political fallacy: It only solves the worst of two problems, so it's worse than solving neither.

Thanks! He's been in a 1.5 gal for about a year so I am hoping he will be much happier in the 5 gal!

 

[OldMan47]

The e-mail is about 10 to 20 years out of date by my reckoning. Nobody has used ammonium chloride for a fishless cycle in a very long time. I suspect many of the other objections to a fishless cycle are equally dated.

 

[JoshuaA]

The e-mail is about 10 to 20 years out of date by my reckoning. Nobody has used ammonium chloride for a fishless cycle in a very long time. I suspect many of the other objections to a fishless cycle are equally dated.

Old reliable oldman47

Until they explain why their "Patented Bacteria" Can survive shipping and foodless shelf life of up to a few years I won't take them serious.

I am however always tempted to try it, although at £10 for a bottle I think I'd rather not. It's an expensive mistake to make. Although I was told the other day at a LFS that if the bottle is kept between 10 - 30c it won't harm/damage the bacteria.

 

[PDSimon]

I got a bottle of the stuff for free, you can buy it of me

 

[JoshuaA]

I got a bottle of the stuff for free, you can buy it of me

I'll give you some live aquatic plants.

Just check to make sure the bottle you've been given is enough to follow the instructions for your tank size.

The bottle of Nutrafin cycle I got free wasn't even big enough to dose the tank ONCE!!!

 

[PDSimon]

it says its got 900 or something litres worth... the wrappers still on it too

 

[raptorrex]

The e-mail is about 10 to 20 years out of date by my reckoning. Nobody has used ammonium chloride for a fishless cycle in a very long time. I suspect many of the other objections to a fishless cycle are equally dated.

I would go further! is twaddle.

a tank matures, more than, 6 months after a cycle is finished. so how then can the "initial" seeding, have much effect. SALES GUFF, wrapped up a "useful" (lol) information.