Bacteria in a bottle, Myth or Fact

[starbuck88]

@Dr. Reef I seen it mentioned a few times about tests using Seneye? Is there a thread for this I can't seem to find it?

 

[MnFish1]

You are absolutely right @Lasse , some of that information is not correct as i was still learning and posting. I have noticed that once carbon source is added bottle bacteria seems to cycle and colonize much faster compared to sterile tank with no carbon source.

I thought you added organic carbon to some of the tanks when there was no change in ammonia levels? All tanks have Co2 and Bicarb as carbon sources for autotrophs?

 

[KStatefan]

@Dr. Reef I seen it mentioned a few times about tests using Seneye? Is there a thread for this I can't seem to find it?

Bacteria in bottle, busting myth, Seneye style.

As some may know I started a study on this subject. I am old school (kick start cycle by adding deli shrimp) and didnt think bacteria in bottle could survive packaging and transportation along with temperature variances etc. Too many people reported great success with the bottles and soon i was...

www.reef2reef.com

 

[Dr. Reef]

I did add organic carbon in tanks that were stalled in form of fish food and stalled cycle started back up and brought ammonia down to 0 within a day or 2.

So i know hytro bacteria requires organic carbon to cycle tank faster.

 

[Clyde Nowlan]

Ive had great success with Dr. Tims.

 

[MrSalty]

I just started a new 55 gal tank using Bio Spira, just by chance since it was available locally. I used all dry sand and rock. I tested before and every day for 2 weeks after adding the Bio Spira. What I seen was consistent with the results posted here. I had 0 ammonia after day 4-5 with 0 nitrites as nitrates slowly climbed. Glad to see some confirmation that it works because I was told there was no way my tank cycled that fast. 2 months later with fish and coral added I have had no detectable ammonia since cycling.

 

[brandon429]

Dr. Reef

this thread deserves to be a sticky or a formal reference for forum posts. We have specifically used this data to discern acceptable (and confident/100% water changes can’t kill) start dates for approximately one thousand new reefs, today will likely be five more etc...


-we use the reference dates here to move onward when api doesn’t agree, not everyone can get that fine bright yellow zero here but we can get it darn close for most. Once we see heavy nitrate, we can reference the brand of bac from your thread (why this should be sticky) and discern a reliable start date, they’re almost always well past the start dates you’ve shown when posting about stuck cycles anyway. The result has been zero loss in new starting reefs, we have discovered zero stuck cycles after using this thread as a reference
we have seen and logged countless api issues for fully cycled reefs, here’s direct application 1/1000 of your branding, submersion time and full water change and then fish

all from a tank concerned about 8ppm ammonia reading after ten days on Dr. Tim’s. They were not stalled, the living fish shows:

100% Water Change

So in my previous thread, I had an ammonia issue that was out of hand. As suggested, I did a 100% WC and now i’m wondering when I should start adding fish back. If anyone has suggestions, let me know!

www.reef2reef.com

-your mention of fish food for carbon has been relayed, probably a large reason these filter beds are ready at consistent dates, brand to brand.


-your thread puts scientific validity to certain aspects of microbiology we all used to just assume in the hobby. For example, a complete water change can’t disarm a new cycle, that’s a first confidence date in a world of guessing, and hoping for that bright yellow zero



cycling is the one time in reefing where losses and consequence are near instant. to be able to pattern one thousand reef starts off the dates and procedures here successfully means this work has application. A thou more coming on file, it’s easy unsticking cycles

 

[blueridgereef]

This is a very interesting study, thank you for going to the effort and sharing @Dr. Reef

I'm curious if there are any synopsis posts in the thread of your findings, as 93 pages will take quite a while to get through

Also curious, as I came here by way of several of your threads, especially the New Cycling Rules, @brandon429 do you have any favorite posts?

 

[brandon429]

Yes thank you for posting on this very helpful thread

I have some summaries to provide that I took from this thread, not sure which post it’s too many lol to count:

- Early pages, Dr Tims commentary on how bacteria feed via natural means we don’t account for, should we skip feeding. Cycling charts are not built on additives and bottle bac, cycle charts are decades old and remark upon natural pickup of bacteria, and feed. Bottle bac however speeds up this wait, as we’d expect from today’s tech


-this whole thread ends the debate on whether bottle bac works or is snake oil. It works


-** we learned the carbon-boosting trick here of adding a pinch of flake food to any cycle, to speed it up. Ammonium chloride isn’t carbon. carbon gets in anyway if we provide none...it’s how cycles completed before this thread, what causes dirt on blinds, or particulate clogging of AC inflow vents in a house has carbon, it wafts in all our tanks. But if you boost C then a cycle goes faster than waiting for it naturally

We learned here via DR and MNFish that alternating species of bacteria are found in cycling products, they love carbon, and in time when bacterial samples are taken from established tanks (aquabiomics dna sampling) the populations have shifted away from original added strains. Each successive strain still carried the ammonia loading, that’s neat.

-though nitrite was tracked here, it didn’t hamper ammonia cycling and that’s still a highly debated topic. In my cycling threads we simply exclude all nitrite data, others include it in determining a start date, ongoing studies remain


- expected timeframes are set for each brand here. Notice how none of them take longer than a cycling chart to complete

- the winner and costliest bottle bac was fritz

- we saw a couple instances of dead bottle bac, that means fish-in cyclers can expect a small loss rate per 100 tanks if they don’t pre verify ammonia


- even after all this time, Dr Reefs use of Api ammonia remain the cleanest testing I’ve ever seen. I’ve never seen anyone post a hard zero yellow reading like his, from any reef, since this post lol. Unfortunately, the entire planet still operates on the belief that living reefs can allow constant .25 free ammonia and still be symptom-free in the display

but undoing that notion gives me something to do online everyday, so I like it

meta summary by me, not everyone will agree: today’s fish from fish-in cycles aren’t killed by nh3 that’s easy to control given the dilutions we run and these bottle bac that were on average ready to reduce ammonia in 72 hours. What kills the fish comes about six months later, and it’s brook, velvet, uro, or crypto.

all this power to control ammonia results in massive fish loss by everyone skipping fallow like it’s the swingin seventies

 

[wonroc]

bac works, get over it

 

[brandon429]

What isn’t answered by this thread, and also nobody in the hobby can answer: does fish-in cycling harm fish, though they don’t act harmed and they feed, and they swim normally, and the water stays clear which are all hallmarks of total nh3 control, not failure to control


the only way the hobby is going to know this answer is for someone to run a fish in cycle using live seneye nh3 monitoring and we can take max nh3 levels attained and reference marine fish breeding/ culture studies involving ammonia maximums permitted

I have already seen three fish-in cycles (posts) on seneye and one went max hundredths ppm, not a single one hit tenths, and two of the three hit maximum nh3 of thousandths ppm which is a factual safe zone. It’s what our reefs currently run at

 

[MnFish1]

What isn’t answered by this thread, and also nobody in the hobby can answer: does fish-in cycling harm fish, though they don’t act harmed and they feed, and they swim normally, and the water stays clear which are all hallmarks of total nh3 control, not failure to control


the only way the hobby is going to know this answer is for someone to run a fish in cycle using live seneye nh3 monitoring and we can take max nh3 levels attained and reference marine fish breeding/ culture studies involving ammonia maximums permitted

I have already seen three fish-in cycles (posts) on seneye and one went max hundredths ppm, not a single one hit tenths, and two of the three hit maximum nh3 of thousandths ppm which is a factual safe zone. It’s what our reefs currently run at

Possiblie - but do you not think that manufacturers - that are selling these products with directions that state "Do A, then B, then add Bacteria - then add fish the same day" have done no research. IMHO - the question is not proving the obvious - that these products work - the proof should be that they 'do not work'. And there is no proof - that I have seen that they do not work - only 'there is concern' that they do not work.

 

[brandon429]

100% agreed

I do not think that the brands who advocate fish-in cycling are out to harm fish, and be shunned by the masses for a failed product. They’ve pulled off the opposite. They deserve their millions, I’m just determined for them not to make a penny off a nitrite reading, keeps me busy daily.

 

[MnFish1]

100% agreed

I do not think that the brands who advocate fish-in cycling are out to harm fish, and be shunned by the masses for a failed product. They’ve pulled off the opposite. They deserve their millions, I’m just determined for them not to make a penny off a nitrite reading, keeps me busy daily.

My question - who is using a nitrite reading? I use these products here is the scenario:

I get a tank - put water, filtration heater, lights in place
Next day - I put in bottled bacteria according to direction
Next Day - I add fish.

There is no need for testing, etc.
Most of the cyclic products (I have used) - require additional additions for some number of days - I do that. Sometimes - if I'm adding more fish than usual - I increase the dose.

I have never tested ammonia, or nitrite (in 40+ years) - Of course I've tested nitrate - but not in conjunction with a 'new tank'. Never had a problem - maybe I'm lucky.

On the other hand - When I first started - at the recommendation of an LFS - on day 1 they sold me - 2 clown fish, a tank, an anemone, an incandescent light, an under gravel filter gravel and a heater - some salt - and said 'it will all work out'. Funny thing is - for 2 days it worked great - the anemone was wide open - the fish were in it. On day 3 (when I assume ammonia had built up - the anemone looked like a wet thimble - and the fish were dead overnight. The LFS said 'huh'?

 

[blueridgereef]

Yes thank you for posting on this very helpful thread

I have some summaries to provide that I took from this thread, not sure which post it’s too many lol to count:

- Early pages, Dr Tims commentary on how bacteria feed via natural means we don’t account for, should we skip feeding. Cycling charts are not built on additives and bottle bac, cycle charts are decades old and remark upon natural pickup of bacteria, and feed. Bottle bac however speeds up this wait, as we’d expect from today’s tech


-this whole thread ends the debate on whether bottle bac works or is snake oil. It works


-** we learned the carbon-boosting trick here of adding a pinch of flake food to any cycle, to speed it up. Ammonium chloride isn’t carbon. carbon gets in anyway if we provide none...it’s how cycles completed before this thread, what causes dirt on blinds, or particulate clogging of AC inflow vents in a house is total carbon, it wafts in all our tanks. But if you boost C then a cycle goes faster than waiting for it naturally

We learned here via DR and MNFish that alternating species of bacteria are found in cycling products, they love carbon, and in time when bacterial samples are taken from established tanks (aquabiomics dna sampling) the populations have shifted away from original added strains. Each successive strain still carried the ammonia loading, that’s neat.

-though nitrite was tracked here, it didn’t hamper ammonia cycling and that’s still a highly debated topic. In my cycling threads we simply exclude all nitrite data, others include it in determining a start date, ongoing studies remain


- expected timeframes are set for each brand here. Notice how none of them take longer than a cycling chart to complete

- the winner and costliest bottle bac was fritz

- we saw a couple instances of dead bottle bac, that means fish-in cyclers can expect a small loss rate per 100 tanks if they don’t pre verify ammonia


- even after all this time, Dr Reefs use of Api ammonia remain the cleanest testing I’ve ever seen. I’ve never seen anyone post a hard zero yellow reading like his, from any reef, since this post lol. Unfortunately, the entire planet still operates on the belief that living reefs can allow constant .25 free ammonia and still be symptom-free in the display

but undoing that notion gives me something to do online everyday, so I like it

meta summary by me, not everyone will agree: today’s fish from fish-in cycles aren’t killed by nh3 that’s easy to control given the dilutions we run and these bottle bac that were on average ready to reduce ammonia in 72 hours. What kills the fish comes about six months later, and it’s brook, velvet, uro, or crypto.

all this power to control ammonia results in massive fish loss by everyone skipping fallow like it’s the swingin seventies

Thank you for this synopsis. I am sure this will help many reefers in the future.

 

[brandon429]

this thread has helped me about 400 times no joke.

in the new tank forum on pretty much any date we can find a new cycling setup that is 3x past the due dates on the bottles, nitrates high and nitrite high and ammonia still there, but seen reduced from the initial levels.

a motion clue

we have them change out all their mixed wastewater for new, begin, and everything lives, always. We use the timelines Dr. Reef made here in a customized approach to unstick any stuck reef cycle without buying new things. that's key, not being on the retail ticker past the first investment. even if their nitrate is false due to nitrite reading, that's still active conversion unlike all ammonia, eight weeks, zero nitrite and zero nitrate

and we can use that known machinery to simply just change the water out like he did here, and go.

and then everything dies from brook in six months/\
out in the slogs of cycling posts we have never seen a given brand of bac take longer than is shown here to carry a starting bioload. we don't even have any dead bottles charted out, 100% rate so far.

 

[blueridgereef]

we don't even have any dead bottles charted out, 100% rate so far.

That in and of itself is incredibly impressive!

 

[brandon429]

Dr Reef did find some however in his exacting measure, including only bacteria from the bottle in his assessments.

I think we (people in my cycling threads that use timing as a start date, not 3- parameter compliance old school) are lucking in this way: even if one was dead, 95% of cyclers in reefs use wet sand, wet = bacteria plus the bag says it on the label

high dilution, average size reef 40 gallons typical speed start is a couple clowns, not huge bioload.

whatever degree the dead bottle might offer, I’d imagine its hard to randomly kill every cell of water bacteria packed in water


But most bottles are alive, plus all that compounding.
Compounding luck I bet.

lastly, per a cycle chart on day ten of most haphazard arrangements basic ammonia control has usually set in. The bioload and a few rounds of pellet feed is lucky enough to be under lethality levels by day ten. This is why people doing full water changes after about 10-15 days never report back that we killed all their fish, every brand sampled here has about a ten day max time

I do not buy the notion that two clownfish act normally in 2 ppm nh3 water, the way they‘d act is dead or like an animal with no kidney function, dead and lethargic leading up. They would act burned, and they never do. I can’t even find one failed fish in cycle thread on any reef forum on the web right now, give it a look. They’re all success, and the crowd chanting they’ve been burned lol and a newbie heartedly apologizing for their burning. But in their mind they’re thinking: these fish must be tanks. They’re being burned alive right in front of me though the bottle directions told me to do it but all my friends said it was bad and they look just great and happy.

animals that act normally (feeding, swims like a clown, seeks current, water clear, no smell, no cloud, day by day) when suspected of being burned by the number one compound they want to excrete are a reliable indicator of water status, we think better than api.

it takes precision, exclusionary testing like in this thread to get api to behave tank to tank I really believe.

 

[blueridgereef]

I wonder if any of the FW bacteria in a bottle products are this effective? I don't ever see them discussed in the FW community, although I know of at least one (API) off the top of my head.

 

[Dr. Reef]

I wonder if any of the FW bacteria in a bottle products are this effective? I don't ever see them discussed in the FW community, although I know of at least one (API) off the top of my head.

FW bacteria is more effective than saltwater cousin. In fact if you wanna cycle a cycle SW faster drop the salinity to brackish levels and keep alk up and you will cycle lot faster than 1.025.
Reason for that is the density of water and engery these bugs have to use/exert to create the whole nitrogen cycle.
I have cycled brackish tanks with FW bacteria and they did the job fast as well although hey will fade out over time as true sw bacteria gets hold.