Trying a “no cycle” start up on this next tank…

this, in a way, is off topic... but in my curmudgeon years, I've gotten to where I don't like to add things to my tanks... I typically don't even use carbon, or medications, unless necessary... ( I actually had better results treating Ich, with heat alone, than I did using the chemicals I had tried before ) I don't like adding fertilizer for the plants, that aren't beneficial to the fish, that just means I need to be more choosy on my plants, as several will grow just fine on fish waste alone... I have tried some of the magic starter stuff, but can't see the need, when it can be done naturally, & certainly can't see adding poison to the tank, when with a little patience, & some extra water changes, it's not necessary... I'm not saying that these "adds" don't work, or can't help, I've just adopted a more natural approach, to many things in life these days, & my tanks are a reflection of me I guess...

BTW... not a tree hugging hippy type, just trying to take a more natural approach to farming, & life in general as I get older
 
Last edited:
so I posed really a hypothetical question earlier in this thread, but got no answer, unless is was in the documents that @TwoTankAmin ... posted

"so... where does nitrifying bacteria naturally come from, in a new aquarium??? the air???, from driftwood, or other natural aquarium "scape" like plants, from the fish themselves, from their gills, or slime coat, or poop???"

so it has to show up from somewhere, and I'd be curious where, & how quickly they reproduce, when they 1st show up in a tank...
 
Last edited:
Every time I go out for a walk I wear clothes. I never get hit by a car when I cross the street, Therefore, those clothes protected me from being hit by a car. It has worked every time I have gone out and crossed the street. You cannot deny results.

Did you know that people who buy annuities live longer than those who do not do so. So, if you want to live longer, buy an annuity.

A correlation between to variables does not imply cause and effect. This is the difference between science and speculation.

But here is what this all boils down to. I can find a ton of science on the autotrophic bacteria and some ammonia oxidizing Archaea involved in aquariums as oxidizing ammonia, and nitrite as well as many other applications involving wastewater. What I cannot find is a single paper which attributes any of these functions to the spore forming organisms in Stability.

This does not mean there is not such thing as spore forming heterotrophs which deal with ammonia, but they are pretty much all found in soild and other non-aquatic environs. There are a number of these which couple nitrification and denitrification in a single process rather than the two we need in tanks (nitrification and then denitrification). But the spore forming bacteria that can process ammonia need other things not normally found in abundance in tanks.

Spores are not difficult to detect. So if these were present in all cycled aquatic environments I would think they would have been found. What causes the autotrophs to go dormant would cause the bacteria which form spores to do so. So where is the science that shows spores to be present in the biofilm or even the water when the nitrifying bacteria go dormant?

Why are these spore forming bacteria never detected in sample of biofilm or substrate taken from established aquariums? Matbe it is because they are not there?


https://customerportal.seachem.com/SDSResources/13/13.html


according to the SDS mandated by OSHA (you know the government..) there is nothing harmful and the ingredients are a "trade secret", "The blends of strains in all of our bacterial supplements are proprietary" (not a hard concept to understand). Because you cannot find "a paper" according to you there is no scientific data to support that Stability actually does what it's intended to do, seems reasonable:rolleyes:..

Just because you don't understand something or you can't find what you're looking for doesn't mean there's plausible deniability. Yea you put on clothes to go outside, I appreciate that and I'm sure everyone else does as well..and yes you didn't get hit by a car because you looked both ways before crossing the street which had absolutely nothing to do with wearing clothes. Semantic argument because again you don't understand or have the knowledge of what's actually in Stability because it's listed as a trade secret/proprietary and they don't want you to know to protect their profit margins. That's a fairly simple concept for me to grasp and something for the naysayers to cling to for arguments sake.

There's also this:

"There are several federal and state laws that prohibit false advertising, including the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act and the Lanham Act:
  • Federal Trade Commission Act
    Requires "truth in advertising" and allows the FTC to investigate and prosecute false advertising claims. The FTC can also seek court orders to block false ads and fine advertisers.
  • Lanham Act
    Allows civil lawsuits for false advertising that misrepresents the nature, characteristics, or geographic origin of goods or services. A plaintiff can sue for damages or injunctive relief if they can show that the defendant made false or misleading statements, that the deception was likely to influence purchasing decisions, and that it actually deceived or had a tendency to deceive a substantial portion of the intended audience.

    Law.Cornell.Edu

    false advertising | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
    false advertising. false advertising. Primary tabs. False advertising is an actionable civil claim under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. A party who successfully sues for false advertising may be entitled to either damages or injunctive relief. To bring a claim for false advertising, the plaintiff must show: The defendant made false or misleading statements as to their own products (or another's); Actual deception occurred, or at least a tendency to deceive a substantial portion of the intended audience; The deception is material in that it is likely to influence purchasing decisions;

    Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP

    Consumer Protection Attorney | False Advertising - Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP
    Laws Banning False Advertising. False advertising is prohibited under a number of federal and state laws. That includes the Federal Trade Commission Act, which requires “truth in advertising.” The Act empowers the Federal Trade Commission to investigate claims of false advertising and prosecute scammers. The FTC can seek court rulings to block false advertisements and can go after advertisers for money penalties. There are also a number of federal laws that restrict advertising when it comes to specific types of products or services.

    justia.com

    False Advertising Under Consumer Protection Laws - Justia
    The federal Lanham Act allows civil lawsuits for false advertising that “misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin” of goods or services. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). The FTC also enforces false advertising laws on behalf of consumers."

  • I can post links, copy and paste too...I'm absolutely positive that if this didn't work and everyones fish were dying something would have been said or done in this "sue happy world" of false witch hunts. What I want to reiterate here is you have forgotten more about fishkeeping than I'll ever know and I do respect your opinions and appreciate your time. That being said this is purely your opinion without fact to back it up because you don't know what's in Stability. I'll even go further by saying you haven't used this method and I have so what gives you the right to say it does or does not work? As far as I'm concerned that's pure speculation on your part with zero fact to back up your sarcastic argument other than what you've heard/read from "sources" that in fact don't know what the hell they're talking about because the actual ingredients are still unknown. Am I wrong? Do you 100% know the composition of Stability or just what you've heard/read? So please miss me with the arrogant rhetoric and maybe instead try and keep an open mind that just maybe this in fact does work even though you don't have the information you feel necessary to sign off on it. I'll take my proven results over someone's speculation every time. Have a great day​








 

Attachments

  • 1718714050141.png
    1718714050141.png
    338 bytes · Views: 15
  • 1718714050165.png
    1718714050165.png
    339 bytes · Views: 11
  • 1718714050188.png
    1718714050188.png
    192 bytes · Views: 12
Last edited:
The link you offered is meaningless. That information has to do with the hazards of a product. it does nothign to identify what is in the product.

However, do you not find is odd that most other products hat are said to perform the same function identify what bacteria they contain?

Next, if one wanted to sue SeaChem for false advertising, who is going to bankroll the cost of doing so? Would you spend millions out of your pocket money to challenge them?

Seachem actually acknowledges that the cycling bacteria are the aut0rophs. They do not want you to know this so hey keep it well hidden. The wrote it before it was found that Nitrospira oxidize nitrite to nitrate.

Have a read for yourself http://www.seachem.com/Library/SeaGrams/Biofiltration.pdf

So why does SeaChem in the above acknowledge the bacteria in tanks are not the ones in their bottle. Why is this article hidden in the library and requires work to find?


As for your evidence it works , it is anecdotal not scientific.
From sources across the web

The Difference Between Anecdotal and Scientific Evidence Anecdotal evidence is based on experience and observation. Anecdotal evidence is subjective, and unable to be independently verified. Scientific evidence is objective and can be independently verified.
 
this, in a way, is off topic... but in my curmudgeon years, I've gotten to where I don't like to add things to my tanks... I typically don't even use carbon, or medications, unless necessary... ( I actually had better results treating Ich, with heat alone, than I did using the chemicals I had tried before ) I don't like adding fertilizer for the plants, that aren't beneficial to the fish, that just means I need to be more choosy on my plants, as several will grow just fine on fish waste alone... I have tried some of the magic starter stuff, but can't see the need, when it can be done naturally, & certainly can't see adding poison to the tank, when with a little patience, & some extra water changes, it's not necessary... I'm not saying that these "adds" don't work, or can't help, I've just adopted a more natural approach, to many things in life these days, & my tanks are a reflection of me I guess...

BTW... not a tree hugging hippy type, just trying to take a more natural approach to farming, & life in general as I get older
Good point. Its like any hobby/passion, you take obsessives (us) and there is money to be made by industry. If you want extra muscle, there are a 10,000 supplements for you, same if you want to lose weight. Ph up, pH down, never mind if the pH swings kill the fish, if you have the money you can have a pH of 1 on a Monday and a pH of 10 by Tuesday afternoon
 
The link you offered is meaningless. That information has to do with the hazards of a product. it does nothign to identify what is in the product.

However, do you not find is odd that most other products hat are said to perform the same function identify what bacteria they contain?

Next, if one wanted to sue SeaChem for false advertising, who is going to bankroll the cost of doing so? Would you spend millions out of your pocket money to challenge them?

Seachem actually acknowledges that the cycling bacteria are the aut0rophs. They do not want you to know this so hey keep it well hidden. The wrote it before it was found that Nitrospira oxidize nitrite to nitrate.

Have a read for yourself http://www.seachem.com/Library/SeaGrams/Biofiltration.pdf

So why does SeaChem in the above acknowledge the bacteria in tanks are not the ones in their bottle. Why is this article hidden in the library and requires work to find?


As for your evidence it works , it is anecdotal not scientific.


I do not in fact find it odd that a company in business to make a profit would only list what they are legally required to and keep to themselves their secrets. That's basic business 101, again a very simple concept to grasp. The link I provided with the SDS was to prove that you or anyone else doesn't know what's in their product period. Claiming otherwise is asinine. The ingredients are a "trade secret", "The blends of strains in all of our bacterial supplements are proprietary."

As far as scientific evidence, im not a scientist but...Hypotheses must be testable, and once tested, they can be supported by evidence. The theory is if you use this to accomplish that does it work? We used their products to accomplish the desired outcome and it worked, that by definition supports the above statement. So in relation if I'm 10/10 using their method youre saying its anecdotal? What about the thousands of other people who have also been successful? Im personally not in the business of taking chances with thousands of dollars of my hard earned money thats a fact and in this case i tried their products in their recommended process on a smaller scale with minimum investment and was succesful. Once i found it worked i tried it again and was once again successful. Now i had a method i was confident in tested by me that i could quickly use to propagate new tanks.

When I spoke to you on the phone and mentioned this method, heard you were totally against it I respectfully let it be because that's what adults do. I respect your years of knowledge because you've been there and done that with proven results. Your hard stance led me to believe it would be an argument and out of respect although I disagree with your "opinion" I chose not to engage because I could see where it was going...until you got on here and said no new fish keeper should use the method that Ceez posted a video about. You took a direct shot at me and if your stance is to support your arguments with factual data you can't sit here and argue for one second that you're right because in fact you don't have a clue what's in Stability, no one does. You think you have an idea based off of a post you saw but you don't have concrete evidence. I on the other hand have accomplished what I set out to do numerous times using their method with their products which you have never attempted yourself. Make that make sense.

Alas, I digress. Again with all due respect Chris I hold you in high regard because of your vast knowledge and accomplishments in this hobby we all love and come here to discuss but we can agree to disagree snd move on.


Kind regards

Danny
 
Lets make this simple and easy for us all. I can find many scientific papers which support what I say about cycling and the specific bacteria and now also Ammonia oxidizing Archaea being what keeps a tank cycled. I cannot find a single paper which supports what SeaChem says.

But I am willing to alter my opinion if anybody can produce a paper or two which supports what is in Stability as actually being what keeps a fw tank cycled. And then there is the fact that the science also shows that the bacteria in FW and Salt water are not identical. Some of the bacteria are the same but there is a greater diversity of them in fresh as opposed to salt water. This is why Dr. Tim has more than one starter product based on salt levels of the water.

I can give you a little push. There are 150 other papers which cite Dr. Hovanecs paper, Identification of bacteria responsible for ammonia oxidation in freshwater aquaria . So maybe start with them and see how many claim it is spore forming bacteria and not the autotrophic ones which handle the cycling in tanks.

Here is a list of all 150 papers which cited the ammonia paper by Dr. H. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=13880933799637190045&as_sdt=5,33&sciodt=0,33&hl=en

I mean it should not be rocket science to find scientific support for what Seachem claims but refuses to provide any support for. Anybody can claim their "balm" works as long as they do not have to tell you what is in it or to provide any scientific support. I would trust SeaChem if only I could find any science at all to support it besides what they claim without offering any scientific proof.

Why do they not provide proof? Why do they hide the fact that they know it is not what is Stability that cycles a tank but is the autotrophic nitriifiers?
 
~Lots of info~
If the products being sold don't do anything special I would think there would be precidence for a lawsuit and eventual shut down of production of those products. Has no one here ever tested cycling with and without to see if there is a difference? If not, I'd say you are probably correct that the prodcuts don't do as advertised. If they do speed it up then they are legit.

I've cycled a few tanks using seasoned filter sponges/rock from same established tank, API quick start (1 time dose), an ammonia source, and some decor items. Typically takes about a week or so for the cycle to complete when I do that (all ammonia/nitrites converted to nitrates). I've not tried it without API quick start though. If I used a bigger filter sponge, or more it would probably be quicker, but some of the tanks are small so bigger doesn't work in them.
 
Last edited:
Here is what most folks fail to understand about the products which do contain live bacteria as opposed to spores. The actual bacteria and Archaea that end up keeping tanks same from ammonia etc. cannot contian Nitrospira due to the patent. So they use Nitrobacter unstead. This is more commonly found in waste water treatment. The ammonia bacteria are not patented and anybody can use them.

So, you buy a bottle of bacteria which contains Nitrobacter instead of nitrospira. What happens when you cycle using it? Firstly, the ammonia bacteria go to work almost immediately. So you see low of no ammonia reading right away. So you have started by eliminating this part of cycling. This also means that nitrite is being created very early on as well. The Nitrobacter will start to use it. But as they do this they reduce the amount of nitrite in the tank to levels which will not support them for very long. However, what is happening is tat the Nitrospira are colonizing as they can do well with much lower levels of Nitrite than the Nitrobacter.

What is happening is the number of nitrobacter cells is decreasing and the number of Nitrospira is increasing. This is not something we can see. All we can see are the test results for nitrite. And this is why it appears as if the Nitrobacter are doing all the work. But, science is not as limited in it's tools than we hobbyists are. They can test all of this in a lab.

And this can also explain why some folks thing Stability is cycling a tank. It is not. There are other heterotrophic bacteria that can use ammonia. But they need organic carbon to do so. These are the sort of bacteria that cause cloudy water in a a new tank. The conditions for these bacteria to use up ammonia is there but they require organic energy sources. On the other hand, the nitrifiers make their own energy from ammonia and nitrite. They do not need organics, in fact they need inorganic carbon while the non-nitrifyinh ammonia uses need organic carbon. Also, the non-autotrophic ammonia uses do not create nitrite.

So, Here is my take on Stability. What it does is to clear ammonia and not make nitrite. However, the conditions in our tanks are not constant and as the organic sources dry up, the autotrophs begin to colonize. And there is a transition from the things that will not persist in a tank to this which will. But we cannot see this. This is much like how the Nitrobacter are replaced with Nitrospira. It happens but we do not see it.

But there is an easy way you can test this all. Start with two tanks set up identically in terms of substrate and decor as well as filtration. The set out to do a fishless cycle on both using seeded bottled bacteria- into one tank add Stability according to the directions and into to the oither add Dr. Tim's One and Only according to the directions. And of course add ammonia in equal amounts and thereafter in response to test results. I would suggest using at least 2 ppm but not more than 3 ppm.

Then determine which tank is ready for a full load of fish first. A full load of fish is what defines a fully cycled tank. Now I realize some folks like to understock, but the same would still apply.

When Dr. Hovanec et. al. dis their research they had to the tools to access what specific bacteria etc, were present when a tank is cycled. In their ammonia research they actually Used the Fritz bacteria which contained Ntrobacter. But the tanks where the fritz was added shoed that there were virtually no nitrobacter presernt in the end, there were Nitrospira instead.

Bear in mind that doing research is costly. Somebody needs to underwrite research. Dr. Hovanec's first paper showing what was expected to be in tanks was not there was his PhD thesis. So the university covered the costs and had the facilities. And if we read the paper on Nitrospira we will find this:

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS​

We thank Ellen Ko, Quynh Lu, and Michelle Waugh for helpful assistance and Alison Murray for assisting with the DGGE. We also thank Julia Sears-Hartley, Melissa Lokken, and Les Wilson for water chemistry analysis.
This work was supported in part by National Science Foundation grants OCE95-29804 and OPP94-18442 to E.F.D. and by assistance from Aquaria, Inc. to T.A.H.
So, we can see who funded the research in part and who also contributed.

Who is going to do this sort of research into Stability? What other company whose products do not contain nitrospira wants to do it? And why would SeaChem pay for independent research into Stability when they know the resuls would not be good for them?

Like I have stated in this thread over and over and and which almost nobody has acknowledged not taken me up on is the challenge to find any recent science (the last 20 or so years) which says the cycle is not handled by autrophic bacteria but rather the spore formers in Stability. And why doesn't SeaChem, who has deep pockets, fund such research? I cannot think of a reason except that it would make it clear that Stability does not cycle tanks which is not the result they would like to have publicized.

The companies competing in the industry do not engaging in this sort of research. As for who else might sue stability, maybe a very rich individual might do so, but why would they waste money on this? Dr. Hovanec's first paper and his thesis were done to confirm that what was thought to be in tanks actually was there. Fortunately, he discovered the opposite. But jis purpose in doing the research was not to prove what was thought to be there was not.

Science is the act of discovery of what is happening rather than what is not. And one of the great parts of the scientific method is that it acknowledges that things which once had been accepted as the explanation are not. Everybody knew what bacteria were doing cycling until Dr. H. came along and looked. The other hallmark of the scientific method is that if another scientist does the same research they should get the same results.

Since Dr, H. did his research science discovered that there were Archaea which also converted ammonia to nitrite. And then they discovered that certain strains of Nitrospira were able to convert ammonia directly to nitrate. This was an accidental discovery made in a tank in the basement of a lab. It was there because they kept fish not because they set it up for research purposes. This also explains why now Dr. Tim's One and Only also contains ammonia oxidizing Archaea as well as ammonia oxidizing bacteria. The Archaea are able to thrive on even lower levels of ammonia than the bacteria involved.

Because my cycling needs changed from one tank at a time to needing to get 8 to 10 tanks cycled all at once, I conckuded it was much easier to create a bio-farm in which I could cycled the filters for all the tanks. I takes me 10-12 days to do this and much less work. However, the potential complications are different and require different monitoring. I am cycling 8 tanks worht of foliterss fgoing into 220 or mare gallons of water and doing it all in a 40 gal. tank. Keeping things moving along takes a much different effort than cycling a single tank. It only gets more complicated when I have to be adding 20 ppm of ammonia to tank every day or two and I need to do it in multiple smaller doses.

However, I need to change water every day or two and I have to have a few bags of crushed coral in the farm so the bacteria have pelnty of inorganic carbon (i.e. carbonates and bicarbonates). Since the filters are air powered that covers the needed oxygen. The water changes provide everything else. But in a 40 gal filled with filters being cycled, a 75% water change is usually done with 20 gals. of water. The filters and heaters and bags of coral take up volume. If I were cycling 8 tanks with 220 gals I would have to do changes less often. But where I have to do it all is far from my water source. I have a 100 foot hose I use to get the water at temp. where I need it.

edited to fix typos and spelling
 
Last edited:

Most reactions

Back
Top