Liquid Bacteria

[neon tetra]

Hi guys, so i have my first 10 gallon aquarium and it came with liquid bacteria. I have heard conflicting advice and was wondering does it acually work or do i need to go buy ammonia instead?

Thanks

 

[MBOU]

Its completely up to you, like you said, the questions been asked a lot of times and there is still no definative answer.

Some people prefer cycling using ammonia and others dont, personally I never had any luck cycling with ammonia as i just found it so tedious and unecessary when I could get the same effect a lot easier.

Bacteria products DO work or they wouldnt be allowed to be produced and they would certainly be done for false advertising if they couldnt back up their evidence that their products work... however if you read small print, there is generally a lot of dos and donts and some supplements only work in certain situations etc.

Personally of all the ones I have used, Evolution Aqua Pure Balls are good (though better for ongoing maintenance than cycling new tanks), API Stress Zyme (maintenance), API QuickStart (cycling) and AquaCare Biological Supplement for cycling (MAs own brand but its the old style cycle that actually worked before they changed the ingredients))

 

[Gvilleguy]

Dr. Tim's nitrifying bacteria in a bottle also works. I just used it four weeks ago to cycle a 6.6 gallon tank from scratch. I supplemented it by feeding ammonia into the tank to measure how fast it was processing. After the first week, 3 - 4 ppm Ammonia and nitrites were processing to zero consistently within 24 hour periods. By comparison, my other fishless cycles from scratch (no mature media) took 40 to 60 days each.

 

[raptorrex]

Dr. Tim's nitrifying bacteria in a bottle also works. I just used it four weeks ago to cycle a 6.6 gallon tank from scratch. I supplemented it by feeding ammonia into the tank to measure how fast it was processing. After the first week, 3 - 4 ppm Ammonia and nitrites were processing to zero consistently within 24 hour periods. By comparison, my other fishless cycles from scratch (no mature media) took 40 to 60 days each.

yeah, its seems to work for some, but not others.
for everyone that works, there is at least one where it does not.


@MBOU, its not actually true, in the USA, to say a product works because they say so.
there is no law in the states forcing makers or retailers to tell the truth. (its actually the other way round)
one of the reasons DR Tim's product is not "officially" sold in the UK, and elsewhere, is because he wont offer it for testing. ( as a "biological"(sic) product it needs tested for safety)
Now i accept the science behind the product. (though it does not help the "peer" review is by his business/research partner)
but as yet no confirmation that that bacteria is even in the product, or survives in the product, has been offered.

if we leave aside "does it work".
and look to "how often does it work".
we may get somewhere.

currently, if reports on forums and the like are true, its about 50-50, perhaps a little higher.
now, for me looking at buying a product, I would have to see 80-20 (minimum) before i could suggest it works.

and anyway, I've never had a cycle last longer than 21 days, more often 14-18.

Ok so I'm an old cynic.
but i can't trust a product that continually refuses to be tested, in a control situation.
to me, that smacks of something to hide.

I am aware, and accept, the great work Dr Tim has done is seeding public aquaria.
that said, most of us could donate bacteria to seed someone's aquaria.
but how many could bottle it and sell it commercially?
there is a big gap between seeding, and bottling and preserving it for sale.

finally we have to remember Dr Tim did this all before.
then too, he claimed to have a working bottled cycle. (it worked roughly as well as his current product)
yet it was him himself, a few years later, who admitted he had been wrong.
that too was backed up by science (his PhD thesis)

 

[Gvilleguy]

I agree that it is a "take your chances" kind of deal, since I have seen success and failure reports on the products. But, for me, I got lucky, and the $12 saved me a lot of cycling time. My local, soft, tap water is brutal to cycle without adding mature media or something from a bottle. So it's good to hear from both camps - good and bad experiences. So I guess our answer should always be MAYBE...my original post should have mentioned that it's not guaranteed by any means.

 

[TwoTankAmin]

Virtually everything posted above is a fabrication.

yeah, its seems to work for some, but not others.
for everyone that works, there is at least one where it does not.

currently, if reports on forums and the like are true, its about 50-50, perhaps a little higher.

The is no way for him to know this- he has made it up with no factual proof. There are thousands of aquatic fish forums in many languages. I am sure almost every one of them has had threads on this. There is no way raptorex has been to even the dozen largest English speaking ones let alone to those in other languages and fact checked. Moreover, bottled bacteria products are used much more heavily by public aquariums and the aquaculture industry than the aquarium trade. I would bet dollars to donuts raptorex has been to almost none of these type of sites. There is 0 reason to believe he did not make his 50/50 number up. But go ahead and prove me wrong raptorex- quote me stats from the just the dozen largest English speaking aquarium forums.(Largest would be based on the number of members and or posts/year (to even out site age differences). I have personally followed threads on a number of forums and the posts do not appear run 50/50 almost anywhere I have looked.

one of the reasons DR Tim's product is not "officially" sold in the UK, and elsewhere, is because he wont offer it for testing.

This again is completely made up by raptorex. For one what does the term :"officially mean" ? For two, here are links to places in the UK you can purchase the products right now
http/www.amazon.co...g/dp/B001LUOI92 and http/www.marineaqu...rifing-Bacteria

How does raptorex know that Dr. Hovanec won't offer it for testing? Again prove this BS by telling us which laboritories and researchers asked him for the product and how they wanted to us it when they did. raptorex is fabricating all this. Here is how you can tell he makes this stuff up. SeaChem sells a bacterial starter called Stability. They refuse to divulge what is in their product. Go to their site and read for yourself. But Stability is sold in the UK- how can this be if they won't reveal what is in their bottle let alone offer it for testing. At least Dr. Hovanec makes it clear he bottles the bacteria he discovered (and in some cases patented). Here is another bacterial [roducts sold in the UK- SafeStart (basically the Marineland version of DrTim's One and Only). Just Google "tetra safestart + UK" and you will find it available all over.

I can tell you that when it comes genetic testing to identify the bacteria in a bottle "These deep sequencing runs are very expensive ($25-50K or more) so it won't be many groups that can even run these." (This comes from a research microbiologist who is also a lifelong fishkeeper. No it not Dr. Hovanec.) Then you need to add the costs of the rest of the project- other tests, lab time, scientists time etc. So if raptorex will just fork over about $125,000 - $200,000 and we could settle this once and for all. What, he can't or doesn't want to pay for this? OK, then he can tell us who does. Dr. Tim might but then we would be back to his statements that the seller can't be the tester or funder of the research. Maybe one of the other products sellers would and have theirs tested side by side. Nope that wont satisfy him either- same conflict. Nobody is going to do this sort of testing for the heck of it. If he doesn't understand this, than he really needs to take his ball and go home.

I am aware, and accept, the great work Dr Tim has done is seeding public aquaria. that said, most of us could donate bacteria to seed someone's aquaria.

More raptorex BS. DrTim's product was and is used to cycle public aquarium tanks upwards of 1 million gallons- exactly who does raptorex know that can provide enough seeding for even a 1,000 gal. aquarium that will be stocked at the same time. He is just being silly when he states this. Neither raptorex nor anybody else on this forums is able to instantly cycle tanks of 100,000 gals and up let alone only a mere 10,000 gals.

but how many could bottle it and sell it commercially? there is a big gap between seeding, and bottling and preserving it for sale.

BS again. There is a topic in the Scientific Section I personally posted. You can read it here http/www.fishforum...arter-research/ This is just one clear piece of proof that bottled bacteria exists, survives and works.

Now i accept the science behind the product. (though it does not help the "peer" review is by his business/research partner)

This is a flat out lie by raptorex- he has no clue who did the peer review and any of the three papers written by Hovanec et. al. Here are direct quotes regarding the peer review policies and rules for the journal in which all three of Dr. Hovanec et. al. studies were published;

From Guidelines for Reviewers of ASM Journals Submission, Review, and Publication Processes

Do not discuss the paper with its authors either during or after the review process.
Although it may seem natural and reasonable to discuss points of difficulty or disagreement directly with an author, especially if you are generally in favor of publication and do not mind revealing your identity, this practice is prohibited because the other reviewers and the editor may have different opinions, and the author may be misled by having "cleared things up" with the reviewer who contacted him/her directly.

From Instructions for authors

Review Process

All manuscripts are considered to be confidential and are reviewed by the editors, members of the editorial board, or qualified ad hoc reviewers. To expedite the review process, authors must recommend at least three reviewers who have expertise in the field, who are not members of their institution(s), who have not recently been associated with their laboratory(ies), and who could not otherwise be considered to pose a conflict of interest regarding the submitted manuscript. Please provide, where indicated on the submission form, contact information for suggested reviewers who are not editorial board members.

Conflict of Interest

All authors are expected to disclose, in the manuscript submittal letter, any commercial affiliations as well as consultancies, stock or equity interests, and patent licensing arrangements that could be considered to pose a conflict of interest regarding the submitted manuscript. (Inclusion of a company name in the author address lines of the manuscript does not constitute disclosure.) Details of the disclosure to the editor will remain confidential. However, it is the responsibility of authors to provide, in the Acknowledgments section, a general statement disclosing financial or other relationships that are relevant to the study. Examples of potentially conflicting interests that should be disclosed include relationships that might detract from an author's objectivity in presentation of study results and interests whose value would be enhanced by the results presented. All funding sources for the project, institutional and corporate, should be credited in the Acknowledgments section, as described below. In addition, if a manuscript concerns a commercial product, the manufacturer's name must be indicated in the Materials and Methods section or elsewhere in the text, as appropriate, in an obvious manner.

If the authors do not know who reviewed their work, how the heck can raptorex have any clue? And since authors may not submit potential revier names who have a conflict of interest, reprotex either deliberately lied to make his misinformed opinion look credible or because he never botherer to check the facts, he just made them up. Either way shame on you raptorex. AEM is a well respected prestigious journal with a superb reputation. You on the other hand appear to have no sense of ethics when it comes to misstating the facts and the truth.

Finally we have to remember Dr Tim did this all before. then too, he claimed to have a working bottled cycle. (it worked roughly as well as his current product) yet it was him himself, a few years later, who admitted he had been wrong.
that too was backed up by science (his PhD thesis)

This is nonsense. I will not even bother to post links- every word of it is not true. Dr Hovanec has published 3 peer reviewed papers. The first concluded the nitrifyers in tanks were not the ones science had previously thought. The second identified the nitrite oxidizers in fw tanks and the thrid identified the fw ammonia oxidizers. None of the papers contradicted any of the earlier ones. I do not believe raptorex has read any one of them in their entirety since he could not make the statements he did had he. Dr Hovanec's Ph.D. thesis served as the basis for for the initial research showing what wasn't in tanks and suggesting more work was needed to identify them. This was turned into a research paper which was published in August 1996. The work likely began the year before. The first product, Bio-Spira came out in 2002. raptorex did you lend him your time machine. How did a paper written in 1995/96 correct something that came out in 2002??
http/web.archive.org/web/20070210185321/http/www.marineland.com/science/biospira/biospira_timeline.asp

raptorex- should just stop posting on this topic because he is just making a fool of himself when he does. He can not backup a single thing he has have posted above with independent facts or confirmation.

Since it is not my intention to be active on this site any longer, I fully expect to be banned for the tone of this post which is why I pulled no punches.I am sorry if i may have offended any of the memebers here but I am sick of suffering fools.

 

[onidrase]

I have not had any luck with it myself. I recently tried API's new "Quick Start" product, and it did nothing on my 50 gallon tank when I was fishless cycling it. When I set up my first fish tank, before joining the forums and such, I used that stress zyme stuff to kick it up, which didn't do anything either. Of course, with the quick start, I was only given enough to treat about 200 gallons. Just ended up seeding media instead, as always. Try to find a friend or family member or somebody locally who has a fishtank, and just ask them for a dirty filter pad.

There are a lot of people who say they work, but those cases from what I've been watching don't seem well documented, all the people I see who test these out and document the progress of their tank while using them are the ones I'll trust more than those who say "It works, my fish didn't die when I used it"

This isn't saying that they're not ever going to work, but I just don't see a lot of evidence I can trust. If somebody links me to some, I'd appreciate it. I haven't seen Dr Tim's stuff, though people say it works well, even locally as opposed to online. So this has nothing to do with him.

 

[Aquascaper]

Wow! Who stole the jam out of your donut?!

I've never had any success with bottled bacteria in the 7 tanks I've had over the past 9 years so wouldn't waste my money (the stuff I had was freebies from LFS).

 

[Gvilleguy]

I think that is part of the problem. I would guess the freebie stuff is not going to work as well as the stuff you pay for. I think it just depends on which product you try. Dr Tim's absolutely worked in my tank. My first choice would still be using mature media to cycle, but, in a pinch, I would definitely buy it again.

 

[Aquascaper]

This was the same stuff you would buy, it wasn't part of the tank 'starter kit'. Admittedly it wasn't Dr Tim's but it was API stuff. I'm not convinced as it didn't work for me.

 

[gregswimm]

All the liquid bacteria is a scam. Your tank will take just as long to cycle without that stuff. How long do you think aerobic bacter can live in anoxic conditions?

Edit: mature media is by far your best bet. I can cycle a filter in 2 days with spare media I keep in my filters.

 

[MBOU]

The API QuickStart needs to be fed. Hence why (and the bit I really hate about it) it says "allows instant addition of fish* " with its own little asterisk (sp). Speaking to the rep about it, she didnt advise adding fish, said it could be much better done with a couple of flakes of food.

But yeah... works for some and not others.

And TwoTankAmin, I'm not personally going to delete the post, let alone ban you! You were polite and all times and it was a very interesting read, certainly one other people could learn from.

 

[Gvilleguy]

All the liquid bacteria is a scam. Your tank will take just as long to cycle without that stuff. How long do you think aerobic bacter can live in anoxic conditions?

Edit: mature media is by far your best bet. I can cycle a filter in 2 days with spare media I keep in my filters.

I'm confused by forum members that say none of these products work. If it works for some people, how can it be a scam? I did a very careful cycle with it and logged my testing results daily. I put the details in the thread linked below, if you care to see the testing results. Prior to this I did a fishless cycle with my tap water, without mature media, and it took 72 days. I also did a second fishless cycle on a filter with a small portion of mature media added, and it took 30+ days. My local tap water has KH/GH = 0, and pH = 6.0, so it is very hard to fishless cycle it 'from scratch'. With Dr. Tim's bacteria in a bottle? Seven days. For me, the product absolutely worked. The treated filter was processing small amounts of ammonia from day one, and a full load (3-4 ppm) within 12 hours after a week.

6.6 Gallon Petco Bookshelf

 

[onidrase]

The API QuickStart needs to be fed. Hence why (and the bit I really hate about it) it says "allows instant addition of fish* " with its own little asterisk (sp). Speaking to the rep about it, she didnt advise adding fish, said it could be much better done with a couple of flakes of food.

But yeah... works for some and not others.

And TwoTankAmin, I'm not personally going to delete the post, let alone ban you! You were polite and all times and it was a very interesting read, certainly one other people could learn from.

When I tried API's quickstart, I used it as a additive just to see if it'd do anything if I were to fishless cycle. I just threw in the recommended dosage, added 4 ppm of ammonia, and waited. And wait a little longer. Redosed the API 4 times with no results within a week or so. Guess a few factors could be:

Lack of materials to carry on; I go 2 bottles used to treat a total of 220 gallons (only 4 doses) as an associate sample, didn't really want to buy the stuff to be honest.

Too much ammonia at once; could be that it needs to eat it progressively and can't handle the big load

Crazy high pH, kH, and gH; the tank I was cycling was for tanganyikan fishes


I'm thinking everything can be a factor in which whether these things work or not, rather than just saying "no it doesn't work" it could be more of "It doesn't work unless..."

 

[raptorrex]

the product still does not work on a regular basis.
and has never been tested either.

I have no problems with the science behind the product.
just it works far too few times, as opposed to the times it does work.

lets face it, we wouldn't uses a heater, if we were not sure it worked 100% of the time.

whilst we have environmental variables, at play here.
it not fair to ask for "manufactured" levels of effectiveness. (if a maker has a product that fails 7% or the time. its considered a failure. 20% would have the designer and the commissioning manager sacked)
but it needs to work well over 80% of the time, just to be though to work!

this is my problem.
whilst there may be some truth in the product, it just does not work consistently enough. as Dr Tim's forum will attest.

I have a view, its true. but am open to accepting products like this work.
just there is no "consistent" evidence of that.

twotank, you get caught up in the science behind the product.
the product and the science behind it, are not always the same.
you seem to have even more problems, if the science is dressed up as glossy sales blurb.

as for me not being able to know if there is a 50-50 split between those saying it work and those saying it does not.
I can read and i can count.
I need no more skills than that!


onidras makes a very valid point.
environmental variables could well play a part here.
they certainly do when we use more conventional cycling systems.

this brings up another point.
the suggestion that we all have the exactly the same bacteria in our tanks.
this is highly unkindly, as anyone with some knowledge of bacteria will attest.

though fishkeeping is a fairly small hobby, word gets around.
if this product truly worked consistently, we would not be having this discussion.
we would be taking about where to buy it!