Bacteria in a bottle, Myth or Fact

[Dr. Reef]

I noticed this yesterday and its doing it today as well. Fritz tank evaporates more than other. its second on the lineup and temps are same on all tanks. Does bacteria has anything to do with it?

 

[Japtastic]

Great bit of research this. I tried Dr.Tims and Microbe-Lift which both failed. Can almost guarantee that it was due to being stored/shipped incorrectly. Fritz Turbo Start worked first time for me in the UK. I bought it from a big online retailer here that keeps it refrigerated at their facility but doesn't send it with an ice pack Either way, it still worked. Even more of a lottery for us in the UK.

 

[Dr. Reef]

after reading many reports from many different hobbyist and one bacteria working for some and not for others and then the factor of refrigeration,
i am forced to believe there are 2 factors at effect.

1. Bacteria is not refrigerated and depending of where its stored and how hot/freezing it gets, and how long its been sitting on shelf.
2. Transport and warehouse practice. if a new bottle is shipped out within few days/weeks even if the element of #1 are at play chances are some bacteria is still alive when we get it.

This makes the bottle work for some and same bottle not for others.

 

[Dr. Reef]

It's about 3am again and on day 3 I don't have much better report than other nights.
Dr. Tim prodibio and stability are all showing 8ppm.
I double dosed Dr. Tim and Stability tonight.
I have to let Prodibio run it's course as I don't have enough. Only got 1 pack left which will be used in second round.
If double dosing doesn't work tonight I am going to dose 4 times the recommend size and then let it be for 7 days. If after 7 days ammonia is still present I am going to stop the study and clean tanks and reset for second round.
To me if a qt tank is not instantly cycled say in 7 days then really it's a waste of money to purchase a bacteria in bottle. A 5 gal tank should easily be cycled in 2-3 weeks just without any assistance. ( My control is still on and started with 4ppm after 4th day it's lighter than 4ppm guessing 3ppm)

I wanted to achieve instant cycle using such bottles and so far Fritz is the one that got me there. They all claim No new tank syndrome or instant cycle.
Just to be fair to other products I will reset and make sure this time I start with 2-3ppm only.
For the next round I am going to skip Salifert kit and replace it with Seachem Multi Ammonia kit.

 

[Brew12]

It's about 3am again and on day 3 I don't have much better report than other nights.
Dr. Tim prodibio and stability are all showing 8ppm.
I double dosed Dr. Tim and Stability tonight.
I have to let Prodibio run it's course as I don't have enough. Only got 1 pack left which will be used in second round.
If double dosing doesn't work tonight I am going to dose 4 times the recommend size and then let it be for 7 days. If after 7 days ammonia is still present I am going to stop the study and clean tanks and reset for second round.
To me if a qt tank is not instantly cycled say in 7 days then really it's a waste of money to purchase a bacteria in bottle. A 5 gal tank should easily be cycled in 2-3 weeks just without any assistance. ( My control is still on and started with 4ppm after 4th day it's lighter than 4ppm guessing 3ppm)

I wanted to achieve instant cycle using such bottles and so far Fritz is the one that got me there. They all claim No new tank syndrome or instant cycle.
Just to be fair to other products I will reset and make sure this time I start with 2-3ppm only.
For the next round I am going to skip Salifert kit and replace it with Seachem Multi Ammonia kit.

I don't feel that double dosing is going to be effective. Most of these products are designed to work at 2ppm ammonia or less. It's not that there aren't enough bacteria (although that could be a problem too), its that they don't have the right type of bacteria. That's why I am so impressed with the results from Fritz.

 

[Dr. Reef]

I don't feel that double dosing is going to be effective. Most of these products are designed to work at 2ppm ammonia or less. It's not that there aren't enough bacteria (although that could be a problem too), its that they don't have the right type of bacteria. That's why I am so impressed with the results from Fritz.

I understand what you are saying but i am puzzled at 1 thing. Dr. Tim one and only is live and right type of bacteria (according to Dr Tim himself and Mike at Fritz confirmed it) for it to fail and not having any more effect than stability or prodibio is strange to me.

There could only be 2 reasons for it to fail,
1. not enough to overcome 8ppm
2. bacteria is dead in the bottle.

your thoughts?

 

[Brew12]

I understand what you are saying but i am puzzled at 1 thing. Dr. Tim one and only is live and right type of bacteria (according to Dr Tim himself and Mike at Fritz confirmed it) for it to fail and not having any more effect than stability or prodibio is strange to me.

There could only be 2 reasons for it to fail,
1. not enough to overcome 8ppm
2. bacteria is dead in the bottle.

your thoughts?

I don't think it has the right strains of bacteria to process ammonia at that high of a level. The best analogy I can think of is that you are trying to use a diatom filter to pump big chunks of waste out of the water. It won't be effective. It may remove a little, but it won't do it well. What you want are some mesh filter socks to start the process. Then you go to the felt filter socks to get more of the smaller stuff and then you use the diatom filter.

You can think of the mesh socks as the bacteria that work well with ammonia above 5ppm, the felt ones best for ammonia between 2ppm and 5ppm and the diatom filter as the bacteria that work best under 2ppm.

That make more sense?

 

[Dr. Reef]

if that analogy is correct then when i reset and dose to 2ppm all product should work and show difference within few days.
few things we learn from this study
1. Fritz TurboStart 900 has the right type of bacteria whether its high or low ammonia.
2. Salifert ammonia kit is not reliable.
3. Refrigerating at warehouse (must) and at home may get you better live quality bacteria.

 

[MnFish1]

if that analogy is correct then when i reset and dose to 2ppm all product should work and show difference within few days.
few things we learn from this study
1. Fritz TurboStart 900 has the right type of bacteria whether its high or low ammonia.
2. Salifert ammonia kit is not reliable.
3. Refrigerating at warehouse (must) and at home may get you better live quality bacteria.

There are several things we haven't discussed about this study - I'm not writing to criticize the methods - but just try to explain why the results can't be used to compare products. (BY THE WAY AM ALSO NOT SUGGESTING CHANGING THE METHODS LOL - This is just for illustration purposes) @Dr. Reef is already doing far too much work

1. There could be a variability in the tank or equipment itself (i.e. for example as someone said - there could have been a chemical in one of them - or there could be nitrifying bacteria in one of them) - this is unlikely - but for this reason - the way to do this properly is to have 3 tanks for each 'regimen'. Doing the test several times does partly help rule out this variable but not completely.

2. There could be variability in the bottle of product used. Best study would be to test 3 different sources also in triplicate. This of course is not possible with this study.

3. Im not sure that the shipping age, etc should be a problem, IF the company itself shipped the product properly, I'm not sure we can blame failure on for example shipping temperature or age of the product. Even if this did cause the problem (i.e. shipped at too high a temperature) - I would not want to use this product - because there is no way to control for this in real life.

I think the problem is that there is a difference between a product that is supposed to start breaking down a given amount of ammonia (i.e. fishess cycling) and one designed to slowly build up with fish present over several days. For example - I wonder if you started with a 10 gallon tank - and 2 clownfish, for example - how long would it take to build up 4 ppm ammonia.

For example, I have used stability MANY times cycling a tank as follows (Setting up discus breeding tanks - with a HOB filter): Day 1 put in fish and stability, days 2-7 add stability as directed. Because I was starting with a high load of fish - I would often add double doses to start. I never had any problem cycling a tank this way. (BTW - this was 2- 4 adult discus in a 40 gallon breeder tank).

 

[Amoo]

Actually the thing that makes this test scientific AND valid is if it's repeatable.

If he does the same test at 4ppm gets a different result, then 2ppm and gets a different result. That in a way is kind of expected.

If once he goes into his 2nd phase of testing by adding more products and is able to replicate the results here depending on his starting levels, then the results most certainly CAN be used to compare the different products. Trying to say that the results of the first test in an experiment can't be used to compare the products is asinine at this point...

Eventually you're going to catch on and learn hobbyist testing, (Which is most all we can do because of cost) does carry value, even though it's not the ZOMG government grant white castle university style testing.

 

[MnFish1]

@Amo0 - If you're referring to my post above - you are barking up the wrong tree - so to speak.

Trying to say that the results of the first test in an experiment can't be used to compare the products is asinine at this point...

The point of my post was to point out to all of the people saying 'wow - I'm going to buy Fritz now because the test worked so well' that the study wasn't designed to compare products and WHY it wouldn't be able to be used that way. Since I helped @Dr. Reef with the design of the test - I think I'm qualified to make that statement (which I dont believe was asinine as you put it)

Eventually you're going to catch on and learn hobbyist testing, (Which is most all we can do because of cost) does carry value, even though it's not the ZOMG government grant white castle university style testing.

As I mentioned in my post (which you might have missed - though it was in capital letters) Im not suggesting any change to the study itself - using the suggestions in my comments would be impossible for a hobbyist to do (I mentioned that in my post as well). So I don't get your 'eventually Im going to catch on and learn hobbyist testing' comment.

Actually the thing that makes this test scientific AND valid is if it's repeatable.

I said this in my post: Doing the test several times does partly help rule out this variable but not completely.

You're correct - repeatability in a study is ONE part of the study being 'scientific AND VALID'. Study design is the other. As I mentioned, some of the products aren't designed to be used in the manner this test was set up (i.e. stability) - so there is no way to say that Stability doesn't work (or work as well), for example. @Amoo I know you are a big fan of anecdotal use of chemicals - which is fine. Unfortunately, just because you 'feel' something doesn't make it fact. Just because 100 people on a forum 'feel' something doesn't make it fact. Without many replications of the same test with different sources of product, etc, IMHO you can't use this to compare products 'accurately'. In any study (whether its hobbyist designed or pHD designed), the goals are set out at the start - the goal of this one was to determine whether bacteria in a bottle is a myth or a fact - not to compare products.

 

[HotRocks]

There are several things we haven't discussed about this study - I'm not writing to criticize the methods - but just try to explain why the results can't be used to compare products. (BY THE WAY AM ALSO NOT SUGGESTING CHANGING THE METHODS LOL - This is just for illustration purposes) @Dr. Reef is already doing far too much work

1. There could be a variability in the tank or equipment itself (i.e. for example as someone said - there could have been a chemical in one of them - or there could be nitrifying bacteria in one of them) - this is unlikely - but for this reason - the way to do this properly is to have 3 tanks for each 'regimen'. Doing the test several times does partly help rule out this variable but not completely.

2. There could be variability in the bottle of product used. Best study would be to test 3 different sources also in triplicate. This of course is not possible with this study.

3. Im not sure that the shipping age, etc should be a problem, IF the company itself shipped the product properly, I'm not sure we can blame failure on for example shipping temperature or age of the product. Even if this did cause the problem (i.e. shipped at too high a temperature) - I would not want to use this product - because there is no way to control for this in real life.

I think the problem is that there is a difference between a product that is supposed to start breaking down a given amount of ammonia (i.e. fishess cycling) and one designed to slowly build up with fish present over several days. For example - I wonder if you started with a 10 gallon tank - and 2 clownfish, for example - how long would it take to build up 4 ppm ammonia.

For example, I have used stability MANY times cycling a tank as follows (Setting up discus breeding tanks - with a HOB filter): Day 1 put in fish and stability, days 2-7 add stability as directed. Because I was starting with a high load of fish - I would often add double doses to start. I never had any problem cycling a tank this way. (BTW - this was 2- 4 adult discus in a 40 gallon breeder tank).

Why are you trying to de-rail this study?

You are using stability in a freshwater tank as a comparison. That makes alot of sense...

 

[MnFish1]

Why are you trying to de-rail this study?

You are using stability in a freshwater tank as a comparison. That makes alot of sense...

I helped design the study lol - so why would I want to de-rail it? The study wasn't designed to compare products.

And I have used stability many times in salt water tanks as well. I don't know if you realize it - but Stability is being used in the study because its supposed to work in salt water.

Here is a quote from the OP/Designer of the study about the purpose of the study.

Yes i would like to reinforce what @MnFish1 said. This study is not to bash other products nor to compare. Study is to see how fast bacteria can get you instant cycle. There are many variables and this does not mean other products dont work or failed in any way. Ammonia dosed to 8 ppm to begin with could be one of the big problem for other products as one mention not to let ammonia exceed 5ppm and Mike at Fritz also stated above to keep ammonia about 4 ppm in aquarium to start fishless cycle.
I will conduct this study again with 4 ppm and 2 ppm as i have plenty of product to do this over again few time. Once all those results are in then maybe we can have a better picture. (still a hobby level study nothing professional)

 

[4FordFamily]

Alright this is all great but let’s stay on topic and play nice folks.

 

[brandon429]

MN fish is doing well, everyone is here. A little push a little pull and Dr R willing to fund and run it, and be up a 3 this thread will provide me riffable patterns no doubt. I’m interested to see the bare registerable amnt of ammonia used / tested somewhere along the way too

Not 8ppm but about true half ppm would show the data I’m interested in seeing... just a snippet of the overall scope we are about to see regarding ability to help w massive qt fish bioloading. At the current stress test levels i takeaway nothing about viability from the bottles.


*its more popular to test the application for these bottle bac, how much fish can they carry, vs low level testing just to see if bac live as viable. With this much time and effort and # persons looking I agree the heavy load testing would reach the greater scope of curiosity.

The number one thing I suspect, against the grain of the many as usual, is that any liquified suspension of any kind of bacteria gets decharged or killed in holding. All seasons all storages accounted for. Gotta let the testing play out a bit more to see, and, we’ll need the bare minimum assessment not the 4-8 one to know that little detail.


Take any form of fluid we can access as a non scrubbed in, non biohazard suit wearing non mask wearing non autoclaving non positive pressure microbiology lab sampler and then bottle it and put a cap on it. Bottled bac 100% guaranteed to have a lil nitrifers. And a little sneeze bacteria and some cyano from up under a fingernail/gardening recently. Heckuva inoculant...these bacs aren’t dying is my bet but if they are, lack of bioslick housing is causing it.

1000% fact in no way shape or form will a fully cycled normal surface area reef lose its bac and downscale if the same temps are applied. The same withholding of feed, if these bottle bac are dying easily then let that be another takeaway of the difference between suspension vs substrate cycling, substrate cycling is bulletproof. My main curiosity the whole time is whether or not every bottle bac for cycling conveys viable bac to build this biofilter, in 10-15 days minimum time.
What they can do initially is for the fish keepers to muse


The two week readings after a 100% water change / 2 ppm digestion test are where my popcorn starts. Suspension cycling is all I care about, 100% of my tank rescue threads and crazy actions people take in them depend on the reliability of substrate cycled materials.

 

[MnFish1]

I understand what you are saying but i am puzzled at 1 thing. Dr. Tim one and only is live and right type of bacteria (according to Dr Tim himself and Mike at Fritz confirmed it) for it to fail and not having any more effect than stability or prodibio is strange to me.

There could only be 2 reasons for it to fail,
1. not enough to overcome 8ppm
2. bacteria is dead in the bottle.

your thoughts?

I would pick option 1 (first). Only because these products wouldn't sell unless they showed benefit. I.e. if I set up a tank, dropped some fish in (and bacteria according to directions) and everything died within a couple days - that product would be off the market.

Option 2 may also be in play - in individual cases - if the product wasn't sent/shipped/stored/used appropriately.

8PPM is very high - there are studies on diatoms showing that photosynthesis is inhibited above 1.1 ppm. (of course photosynthesis is different than bacterial growth).

Here is an interesting article about nitrifying bacteria: http://www.bioconlabs.com/nitribactfacts.html

 

[brandon429]

Very very good link for description of nitrifiers. best and most concise I've seen


One thing I wish it would have included was the ability nitrifiers have to attain feed even if we don't provide any as a measurable dose of ammonia when placed in an aquarium (vs the sealed nature of the bottle)

Attaining a set ammonia amount is a time/ colony count booster it is not the final say on life and death for the biofilter. Given time, they'lll establish just the same/ just fun to point out due to the commonality of the notion that without aquarist-provided feed, ammonia, bacteria cannot survive. It's microbial anthropomorphism

how nitrifiers exist in a non-sterile mix of competing bacteria and other floc and biofilm and still attain feed is highly interesting search too. When mixed heterotrophs die in close proximity to nitrifiers, and other microscopic bugs like various protists and fungi and ciliates etc, they degrade into __________

It's ok if we veer off occasionally on various aspects of bac, the thread is neat aggregation of materials and final testing, really rare combo of events for web threads.


Isn't it true if I've read correctly, that one tank is pure control and gets zero bottle bac, but does get ammonia? Making predictions off when that can pass a full water change/2 ppm in 24 hours test is fun

Prediction, somewhere around 60 days. The fact the nitrifiers will get in at all in the test tank without having to be bought at a store already remarks upon feed sourcing. If the control tank never reaches an ability to self cycle, pass 2 ppm 24 hour oxidation test after a full water change to indicate substrate cycle completion, then lots of microbe science will be in challenge

 

[Amoo]

@Amoo I know you are a big fan of anecdotal use of chemicals - which is fine. Unfortunately, just because you 'feel' something doesn't make it fact.

If you could source this, that would be great, otherwise please don't make comments like this about somebody else's reputation.

--

I think what's being done here is VERY clear. Dr Reef has taken the time to put together a test in which he is showing which of these products work in this setting and which ones do not. He didn't mean to dose test 1 up to 8ppm Ammonia, but it happened, and it's honestly pretty cool that it did as it gave us a talking point I don't think any of us considered going in.

We still have the completion of this testing phase, the 4ppm test and the 2ppm test to go. Inevitably, as you mentioned, all of these products are more likely than not to work at some point.

While this test wasn't meant to be a "comparison" of products, I think that is an inevitable end point that many folks will take away from this, and I can't say that is wrong. At the end of the day if Fritz, or Tim or whoever cycles and holds cycle first in all of the tests, that is going to give us a lot of info to work with and is going to set one or two of these products apart from the pack. Just because the stated goal here is to see which ones work and not as a comparison, doesn't mean the comparison data is invalid either.

At the end of the day, this is a test, being performed by somebody nice enough to spend their own personal time and resources to do this and share it with the community. I for one am very thankful for that. The methodology is laid out entirely and clearly for anybody to follow and repeat if they wish. How folks choose to interpret the data obtained in these tests is up to them, but just because they don't do so in the manner the test was designed doesn't make it wrong.

Thank you again for doing something like this @Dr. Reef . We need more of this in the hobby.

 

[Dr. Reef]

Okay guys we know 8 BPM was a mistake so let's not even worry about this test at all the only thing we gathered from this test is that Fritz can help if you have high ammonia levels. The other thing we learned is salifert ammonia kit is not reliable. Third there could be mishandling off bacteria.

 

[MnFish1]

If you could source this, that would be great, otherwise please don't make comments like this about somebody else's reputation.

Your posts about Cipro and anemones is anecdotal. There is no research or science behind it. You don't know what (or if) you are treating a bacteria when you dump cipro with anemones. You dont know if the bacteria (if any) is sensitive to cipro. It is a hobbyist study - which you seem to 'like'. You haven't taken a certain number of anemones that looked 'bad' and not treated them - and compared them to a certain number of anemones that looked bad and you did treat. I tend to think its 'voodoo'. You can disagree with me - But its why I made the comment about you and anecdotal chemicals. Of course you never did a study - that's not a criticism of you - it would be difficult to do so. You asked - I answered - with my opinion. But - I have never called you 'asinine' before lol.

It may work - it may not work. Either way its an example - and I dont want to change the thread away from what my main points were.

1. I wasn't criticizing the study - I helped design it.
2. I offered to help fund the study.
3. I disagree with you - if people take away that this 'study' is supposed to compare products they are incorrect (even if they do).

By the way - no offense here - but - I'm somewhat surprised that you took the 1 sentence out of dozens that (supposedly) attacked your reputation (which it did not) - to quote. Respond to the rest lol.... In the meantime - just ignore my posts - frankly I'm tired of your replies.