Not all Cycling Bacteria are created equal. Who's who, and what do they need?

[MnFish1]

Haha, if you posted this, asking if your cycle stalled or never got started, my answer would be “a dud bottle of Dr. Tim’s is not am uncommon occurrence”.

Actually, no not really - if I understood correctly - he spun down all of the 'bacteria' - and used just the pellet. So 1. He could have missed spores, 2. The product is designed to be used as is - i.e. not spun down. This is the problem with not using the instructions on the product for testing. JMHO

 

[taricha]

To be honest, I am not surprised at all about Dr. Tim's One and Only. Among about 200 or so reports of Dr. Tim's usage that I have seen across all manners of forums over the past 2.5 years or so, after discounting any that may have confounding factors (usage of plants, algae, dosing other bottled bac products, using established biomedia, etc.), only one report swore that Dr. Tim's worked very well. But in all other cases, Dr. Tim's had seem to do nothing.

I can't disagree. Like Dan says below, he and I have had poor results in the past with One and Only. I just assumed I was unlucky and kept getting dud bottles.

Haha, if you posted this, asking if your cycle stalled or never got started, my answer would be “a dud bottle of Dr. Tim’s is not am uncommon occurrence”.

Very interesting about API QuickStart. Although the product says it can be used in both marine and freshwater systems, and seems to not work (well at all) in marine systems, I'd still love to see how it'd fair in a freshwater system. Maybe you can do a whole other series of tests after this for freshwater systems, lol. I know this is R2R, but hey, science is science.

I know. It's pretty off topic, but they keep daring us with all these teases about fresh and marine, or brackish systems!

 

[brandon429]

Taricha

Please don't think I'm being obtuse for the sake of it.

It's not fair to science to make definitive charts on resolve rates for ammonia loading in reefing and bacterial abilities without using digital calibrated tracking

You don't have to exclude api data, but supplement it and this digital tracking will do worlds to revalidate api for link proof in your other thread about the test kit

I can tell you have footage of Bigfoot, but you're showing it to me in 1984 60p resolution while in black and white

This study unfairly negates seneye studies on Dr. Tims bacteria, which showed a near instant resolve rate for ammonia loading with no feed or obvious sources of carbon or phosphate

He took a calibrated seneye that benched accurately on a full display reef for months

And indicated minute spikes with every slight overfeed leading up to the separate cycle test

And then that same balanced slide was moved to a new dry surfaces bottle bac fishless cycling tank, it's on file, and Dr Tims handled the load within the hour

This is one study with api as your data limiter. I predict when this test is ran on a calibrated seneye, your data rates and overall takeaway changes. That's 8K footage on an oled screen with high resolution and contrast settings

I can wait a few years in anticipation for this turbo version. Reefing is all about the delayed satisfaction. This current study you're doing is still the best most thorough api study I've ever seen and I believe the footage to be real, but we don't know the real timing of things.

JonMalkerson's findings are opposite. There's no chart for that, it's buried in a work thread, but that doesn't mean a kernel of alternate truth doesn't exist. I honestly think you'd want to know that as a truth hunter

Context matters bigtime here too. Charts written definitively omit that detail in my opinion

A data interpreter might read these charts as the #1 sold bottle bac for fish-in cycling is harming fish via the delay you posted

But the aligned truth: when fish are added I've never met anyone who doesn't feed them a little each day

That pairing and context is inherent in the design of the bacteria and in all fairness may a core trigger mechanism for firing up the bacteria per your studies, along with fish waste (carbon and phosphate source)

So in contextual truth, the #1 sold bacteria supplement for fish- in cycling isn't harming fish, their waste is both readily diluted in new tanks plus alternate seneye data exists that showed this bacteria oxidizing ammonia in under an hour, first dose, brand new system with no feed and fish. Alternate data plots can be made using available digital means that challenge these results above apples to apples on at least one brand listed. But the key is, it's not a set experiment by one reefer with tight controls like yours

It's just hundreds of seneye posts about cycles, I happen to recall that specific one, though they're separate data points I think collectively they'll show different timing and ability than the alchemical api kit will show

 

[MnFish1]

Taricha

Please don't think I'm being obtuse for the sake of it.

It's not fair to science to make definitive charts on resolve rates for ammonia loading in reefing and bacterial abilities without using digital calibrated tracking

You don't have to exclude api data, but supplement it and this digital tracking will do worlds to revalidate api for link proof in your other thread about the test kit

I can tell you have footage of Bigfoot, but you're showing it to me in 1984 60p resolution while in black and white

This study unfairly negates seneye studies on Dr. Tims bacteria, which showed a near instant resolve rate for ammonia loading with no feed or obvious sources of carbon or phosphate

He took a calibrated seneye that benched accurately on a full display reef for months

And indicated minute spikes with every slight overfeed leading up to the separate cycle test

And then that same balanced slide was moved to a new dry surfaces bottle bac fishless cycling tank, it's on file, and Dr Tims handled the load within the hour

This is one study with api as your data limiter. I predict when this test is ran on a calibrated seneye, your data rates and overall takeaway changes. That's 8K footage on an oled screen with high resolution and contrast settings

I can wait a few years in anticipation for this turbo version. Reefing is all about the delayed satisfaction. This current study you're doing is still the best most thorough api study I've ever seen and I believe the footage to be real, but we don't know the real timing of things.

JonMalkerson's findings are opposite. There's no chart for that, it's buried in a work thread, but that doesn't mean a kernel of alternate truth doesn't exist. I honestly think you'd want to know that as a truth hunter

Context matters bigtime here too. Charts written definitively omit that detail in my opinion

A data interpreter might read these charts as the #1 sold bottle bac for fish-in cycling is harming fish via the delay you posted

But the aligned truth: when fish are added I've never met anyone who doesn't feed them a little each day

That pairing and context is inherent in the design of the bacteria and in all fairness may a core trigger mechanism for firing up the bacteria per your studies, along with fish waste (carbon and phosphate source)

So in contextual truth, the #1 sold bacteria supplement for fish- in cycling isn't harming fish, their waste is both readily diluted in new tanks plus alternate seneye data exists that showed this bacteria oxidizing ammonia in under an hour, first dose, brand new system with no feed and fish. Alternate data plots can be made using available digital means that challenge these results above apples to apples on at least one brand listed. But the key is, it's not a set experiment by one reefer with tight controls like yours

It's just hundreds of seneye posts about cycles, I happen to recall that specific one, though they're separate data points I think collectively they'll show different timing and ability than the alchemical api kit will show

There is IMHO no significant difference between a Seneye result and any other checkers. It's an easy calculation to calculate NH4+NH3 --> free Nh3. Both would show that in most cases even though total ammonia may be slightly higher than pure zero, the Free NH3 is in a non-toxic range.

Of course there would be an advantage in having instantaneous readings in a tank with fish, and of course one does not have to do multiple tests. But from an experimental point of view - I don't see the benefit.

 

[Dan_P]

And then that same balanced slide was moved to a new dry surfaces bottle bac fishless cycling tank, it's on file, and Dr Tims handled the load within the hour

We will need to see more details of this study to fully understand what was done. Do have the link?

 

[MnFish1]

We will need to see more details of this study to fully understand what was done. Do have the link?

I seem to remember it - if wrong - apologies.

The seneye never registered a 'warning amount' - even though the total ammonia was measuring above zero. I believe (if it's the same post) - that there were abnormal measurements with API - but it was unclear whether those were used correctly.

 

[Dan_P]

I seem to remember it - if wrong - apologies.

The seneye never registered a 'warning amount' - even though the total ammonia was measuring above zero. I believe (if it's the same post) - that there were abnormal measurements with API - but it was unclear whether those were used correctly.

OK thanks. We need to reread the post.

 

[taricha]

(TLDR: maybe Dr Tim's just needs PO4 that would be in a hobby system but isn't in my clean glass bottles)

I get you Brandon, let me lay out a bit of what I'm doing in detail to explain the layers of redundancy against getting fooled by chemistry.
I'm measuring total ammonia in the most typical way, except with a digital spectrometer to give me precise numbers based on calibration curves I've done previously with NH4Cl and (NH4)2SO4.
Secondly, I'm measuring nitrite - in part - because the NO2 test is an entirely chemically independent means to tell you that ammonia is being oxidized without needing to rely on just the ammonia test. I've done that test too on a spectrometer to give me moderately precise numbers based on regression curves with NaNO2. In cases without NO2 oxidation, the amount of NO2 produced is in agreement with the ammonia oxidized. So the two methods are checks on each other.
Thirdly, I'm measuring eventual produced nitrate with hanna checker as a third chemically independent level of redundancy that those who cleared ammonia and NO2, in turn produced NO3 that agreed with the chemical conversion from ammonia to NO3. These are 3 digital, chemically independent (very different test kit) reactions, that are all giving numbers in close agreement about who is oxidizing ammonia and when they are doing it.
Fourthly, I'm measuring pH - not because the pH could possibly move out of the relevant range for nitrifiers - but because the oxidation of ammonia->NO2->NO3 is an acid-producing process (like a lot of bacterial metabolism). Thus it gives me a fourth totally independent chemical test to see who is activating, and when.

All these tests (except pH) make numerical predictions that can be compared to the other tests, and for every product so far - they have been in agreement.
(It would be far simpler to fool a seneye than fool all the interlocking layers of tests I'm doing - So I don't think the video definition analogy makes sense here.)

Could I get some NH3 sensing film material and leave them in the samples to execute the same chemistry as the seneye films? probably - but the chemistry really isn't in doubt here or needing any more levels of independent confirmation.

Here's why you shouldn't take the stuff I've done so far too seriously.
The limitation of what's been done so far, and the reason not to conclude any of these non-responders are bad (yet) is the relevance. I have asked these products to process away ammonia under far more restrictive conditions than in a hobby tank. The surprise to me is how many products have done it (those bags of sand are good??).

Will the non-responders all wake up and chug the ammonia away if given fish food and porous surface? Remains to be seen.

 

[MnFish1]

(TLDR: maybe Dr Tim's just needs PO4 that would be in a hobby system but isn't in my clean glass bottles)

I get you Brandon, let me lay out a bit of what I'm doing in detail to explain the layers of redundancy against getting fooled by chemistry.
I'm measuring total ammonia in the most typical way, except with a digital spectrometer to give me precise numbers based on calibration curves I've done previously with NH4Cl and (NH4)2SO4.
Secondly, I'm measuring nitrite - in part - because the NO2 test is an entirely chemically independent means to tell you that ammonia is being oxidized without needing to rely on just the ammonia test. I've done that test too on a spectrometer to give me moderately precise numbers based on regression curves with NaNO2. In cases without NO2 oxidation, the amount of NO2 produced is in agreement with the ammonia oxidized. So the two methods are checks on each other.
Thirdly, I'm measuring eventual produced nitrate with hanna checker as a third chemically independent level of redundancy that those who cleared ammonia and NO2, in turn produced NO3 that agreed with the chemical conversion from ammonia to NO3. These are 3 digital, chemically independent (very different test kit) reactions, that are all giving numbers in close agreement about who is oxidizing ammonia and when they are doing it.
Fourthly, I'm measuring pH - not because the pH could possibly move out of the relevant range for nitrifiers - but because the oxidation of ammonia->NO2->NO3 is an acid-producing process (like a lot of bacterial metabolism). Thus it gives me a fourth totally independent chemical test to see who is activating, and when.

All these tests (except pH) make numerical predictions that can be compared to the other tests, and for every product so far - they have been in agreement.
(It would be far simpler to fool a seneye than fool all the interlocking layers of tests I'm doing - So I don't think the video definition analogy makes sense here.)

Could I get some NH3 sensing film material and leave them in the samples to execute the same chemistry as the seneye films? probably - but the chemistry really isn't in doubt here or needing any more levels of independent confirmation.

Here's why you shouldn't take the stuff I've done so far too seriously.
The limitation of what's been done so far, and the reason not to conclude any of these non-responders are bad (yet) is the relevance. I have asked these products to process away ammonia under far more restrictive conditions than in a hobby tank. The surprise to me is how many products have done it (those bags of sand are good??).

Will the non-responders all wake up and chug the ammonia away if given fish food and porous surface? Remains to be seen.

I would comment that a lot of the experiments are 'chemically correct' - What I'm not sure of is that the results can be transferred to a biologic system. In other words - the shaking (rotating) bottles do not mimic what we see in our tanks.

 

[brandon429]

Is anyone with a mindstream or seneye ammonia reader willing to co-fund a cycling experiment with me

@Dan_P can you let us know if you feel that prior copper treated substrates would affect nitrification testing. I wouldn't think the old rocks would, was mainly concerned about the actively-dosed system altering the reading. lots of people reef with prior copper rocks and can't keep snails, but...

www.reef2reef.com

post #52 shows fast activity out of the gate for Dr. Tims. I'm not saying that thread is the tightest controlled study for cycling bacteria ever made, it's just one of the very early seneye ones

it's still measurement gold though to be able to correlate snippets such as newness of substrate, flowpathing for active surface area, bottle bac dosed that as far as I can tell didn't get much phosphate boosting per arrangement on post #52, studies in restricted surface area ammonia control also found in that thread. I really like that little thread for what it did-the glimmer of truths it shows. when compared with other calibrated seneye posts it's rather shocking how well reef tanks align for a given arrangement, vs the disparity shown when we try and align the public's report on API or any other non-digital studies.

where seneye goes, bacterial concern drops way way way way down. lag times: drop significantly unless the bottle was dead or compromised. that's the detail I'm seeing between experiments.

What Taricha could do with a calibrated seneye would be best in the industry in my opinion.

*I got your response Taricha thanks for clarifying means and methods I thought that was well said. JM's profile has been changed to CoralClasher.

 

[MnFish1]

Is anyone with a mindstream or seneye ammonia reader willing to co-fund a cycling experiment with me

@Dan_P can you let us know if you feel that prior copper treated substrates would affect nitrification testing. I wouldn't think the old rocks would, was mainly concerned about the actively-dosed system altering the reading. lots of people reef with prior copper rocks and can't keep snails, but...

www.reef2reef.com

post #52 shows fast activity out of the gate for Dr. Tims. I'm not saying that thread is the tightest controlled study for cycling bacteria ever made, it's just one of the very early seneye ones

it's still measurement gold though to be able to correlate snippets such as newness of substrate, flowpathing for active surface area, bottle bac dosed that as far as I can tell didn't get much phosphate boosting per arrangement on post #52, studies in restricted surface area ammonia control also found in that thread. I really like that little thread for what it did-the glimmer of truths it shows. when compared with other calibrated seneye posts it's rather shocking how well reef tanks align for a given arrangement, vs the disparity shown when we try and align the public's report on API or any other non-digital studies.

where seneye goes, bacterial concern drops way way way way down. lag times: drop significantly unless the bottle was dead or compromised. that's the detail I'm seeing between experiments.

What Taricha could do with a calibrated seneye would be best in the industry in my opinion.

*I got your response Taricha thanks for clarifying means and methods I thought that was well said. JM's profile has been changed to CoralClasher.

You are trying to prove/assume the experiment will be different than chemical tests - and a calculator (for free ammonia) - The Seneye IMHO makes no difference - EXCEPT - if correctly used - could be considered the 'gold standard' for ammonia. The problem is that people assume an amount of 0.25 total ammonia is significant - it is not (at the pH in a reef aquarium) - and if you use the instructions on an API test - most '0.25' readings are actually 0

 

[taricha]

Brandon, thanks for digging that post up. I'll check the details.

 

[Dan_P]

Is anyone with a mindstream or seneye ammonia reader willing to co-fund a cycling experiment with me

@Dan_P can you let us know if you feel that prior copper treated substrates would affect nitrification testing. I wouldn't think the old rocks would, was mainly concerned about the actively-dosed system altering the reading. lots of people reef with prior copper rocks and can't keep snails, but...

www.reef2reef.com

post #52 shows fast activity out of the gate for Dr. Tims. I'm not saying that thread is the tightest controlled study for cycling bacteria ever made, it's just one of the very early seneye ones

it's still measurement gold though to be able to correlate snippets such as newness of substrate, flowpathing for active surface area, bottle bac dosed that as far as I can tell didn't get much phosphate boosting per arrangement on post #52, studies in restricted surface area ammonia control also found in that thread. I really like that little thread for what it did-the glimmer of truths it shows. when compared with other calibrated seneye posts it's rather shocking how well reef tanks align for a given arrangement, vs the disparity shown when we try and align the public's report on API or any other non-digital studies.

where seneye goes, bacterial concern drops way way way way down. lag times: drop significantly unless the bottle was dead or compromised. that's the detail I'm seeing between experiments.

What Taricha could do with a calibrated seneye would be best in the industry in my opinion.

*I got your response Taricha thanks for clarifying means and methods I thought that was well said. JM's profile has been changed to CoralClasher.

Thanks for the link. It was a cool experiment and nice use of the Seneye. Here is some figurin’ and speculating.

A 0.022 ppm ammonia consumption in 0.5 h is 0.044 ppm in 1 h. In 24 h the system would consume 1 ppm. So the observation is reasonable, similar to Turbo Start and Bio Spira. For my part, my bottle of Dr. Tim’s never worked that well, but as I have said, probably a dud bottle.

If I understand the study, Dr. Tim’s was dumped into the aquarium, followed by ammonium chloride and then the 30 minute 0.022 ppm ammonia reduction was observed. This all likely happened in the water where the bacteria and ammonia were intimately mixed. There was no established biofilm which takes days to form. Had this experiment been done with an established biofilm, the rate of consumption would likely have been diffusion or mixing rate limited and the ammonia reduction would have taken longer.

Why the @taricha Dr. Tim’s is so slow has nothing to do with how ammonia is being measured or being diffusion/mixing rate limited, but what I think is most likely, a dud bottle.

 

[taricha]

@Dan_P and @brandon429 if you keep reading, it's a little unclear what's going on.
I'll add total ammonia approximate calculations from the seneye (from nh3+pH), as that is more what we're comfortable tracking.
post 49 (2/26), New tank, new sand, new water One and Only added.
post 52 (2/27) From zero, adds ammonia to read 0.022NH3 = 0.7ppm Total Ammonia. Clears to zero within 30 minutes. ~1+ppm Total ammonia per hour is faster than any product out of the bottle, but let's set that aside.
Post 67 (2/28) Adds phyto - spikes NH3 from zero to 0.024NH3 = 0.75ppm Total Ammonia
Post 73 (2/28) up to 0.026NH3 = 0.8 T.A.
Post 75 (2/28) up to 0.031NH3, changes 5 gallons of water, up to 0.067 NH3 = 2.1ppm T.A. (ammonia alert badge still shows safe)
Post 76 (2/28) Cleans seneye moves to clean water bucket and back to tank and reading drops to 0.012NH3 = 0.4ppm T.A.

I don't disregard seneye - they are generally good at what they do. But it's not clear at all to me what that unit was doing - and I can't see the above data as unambiguous clearance by One and Only.

Said another way, according to the seneye, putting the seneye in clean water and back in the tank cleared over twice as much ammonia as One and Only did.

 

[Dan_P]

@Dan_P and @brandon429 if you keep reading, it's a little unclear what's going on.
I'll add total ammonia approximate calculations from the seneye (from nh3+pH), as that is more what we're comfortable tracking.
post 49 (2/26), New tank, new sand, new water One and Only added.
post 52 (2/27) From zero, adds ammonia to read 0.022NH3 = 0.7ppm Total Ammonia. Clears to zero within 30 minutes. ~1+ppm Total ammonia per hour is faster than any product out of the bottle, but let's set that aside.
Post 67 (2/28) Adds phyto - spikes NH3 from zero to 0.024NH3 = 0.75ppm Total Ammonia
Post 73 (2/28) up to 0.026NH3 = 0.8 T.A.
Post 75 (2/28) up to 0.031NH3, changes 5 gallons of water, up to 0.067 NH3 = 2.1ppm T.A. (ammonia alert badge still shows safe)
Post 76 (2/28) Cleans seneye moves to clean water bucket and back to tank and reading drops to 0.012NH3 = 0.4ppm T.A.

I don't disregard seneye - they are generally good at what they do. But it's not clear at all to me what that unit was doing - and I can't see the above data as unambiguous clearance by One and Only.

Said another way, according to the seneye, putting the seneye in clean water and back in the tank cleared over twice as much ammonia as One and Only did.

Oops! I see the errors of my way, used free ammonia not total ammonia. The ammonia take down seems physically impossible for the recommended dose of Dr Tim’s One and Only. This for me raises serious doubts about the measurement. Best to toss this data aside.

 

[taricha]

Here's an update on this - filling n the picture for my bottle of One and Only...

Group 2 Total Ammonia and Nitrite

One and Only, MicroBacter Start XLM, and Caribsea Arag-Alive all responded to ammonia-only during the measurement time frame, but not in similar ways.

Ammonia decrease and NO2 production for One and Only eventually did ramp up, slowly.

Now, it's apparently joined MB Start XLM in the category of building up a bunch of NO2 and it sticking around without any noticeable activity by nitrite oxidizers. Not that people care about a bunch of NO2, I just think it's interesting because I did not expect the NO2 oxidizers to be a difference between these products.

Was my bottle representative? Can't say. But it's not the first "slow" bottle of O&O that we've seen.

 

[KStatefan]

Thanks for the work on this.

 

[Azedenkae]

Here's an update on this - filling n the picture for my bottle of One and Only...



Ammonia decrease and NO2 production for One and Only eventually did ramp up, slowly.

Now, it's apparently joined MB Start XLM in the category of building up a bunch of NO2 and it sticking around without any noticeable activity by nitrite oxidizers. Not that people care about a bunch of NO2, I just think it's interesting because I did not expect the NO2 oxidizers to be a difference between these products.

Was my bottle representative? Can't say. But it's not the first "slow" bottle of O&O that we've seen.

Very interesting.

Yeah, one thing that is hard to say is if things that did not work (or work slowly) is so because that's just the product, or if it is a dud bottle. After all, we are talking about living organisms, so they are susceptible to, well, death, lol.

So... looks like QuickStart doesn't do anything.

 

[MnFish1]

Very interesting. I think some of the methods may be adding a bias, and AFAIK many of the products do not recommend doing the tests/cycling in the manner they are being tested. There are many confounding factors. (I wonder if Fritz would have done better).

That said - What is interesting is the salt water alone sample - which basically shows minimal change - despite many claims on various threads that within a month - with nothing done - there would be good ammonia removal.

To me the common wisdom that if you just leave a tank with ammonia for 30 days it will be cycled - has been proven 'incorrect'. Additionally, it shows that many of the products work - and I wonder if the directions on the package were followed i.e. dose the product on days x, y, z or whatever - and add fish on day one - the ammonia would never reach 2 ppm (unless heavy bioloaded) - thus even many of these products seem to do what they say they do because the testing conditions that they are being used under would never happen in a normal aquarium.

I had thought about doing an experiment - adding .1 ppm ammonia/day to a tank - and seeing what happened with lets say 'Stability'. My strong guess is it would never reach toxic levels.

 

[Garf]

the ammonia would never reach 2 ppm

In a month that much would theoretically be 210ppm nitrate, wouldn’t it? That’s a lot isn’t it, lol