Waste Away: Is it really bacterial? Or chemical? What does it do?

[Robert Binz]

Just read through all of this and it’s amazing how many people are posting questions / statements in these later pages after having very clearly not even finished reading your initial post

 

[Michael Gray]

i ordered waste away and silica.. im interested to see if it will knock back my coolia dinos.. then i can tackle the BUSH of GHA growing of dosing nutrients lol.... BUSHHHHH ahaha

 

[Dan_P]

Hello All:

Here are my comments to this post.

You want to test my products fine. How about contacting me so you can design a series of tests that actually mean something. I know you might learn something and have to change you bias and pre-conceived notions - that's being open minded and willing to learn.

I willingly share my experience and knowledge - all you have to do is ask and be patience as I have a few others things to do. No, I am not going to give you the technical secrets I have learned in over 30 years of growing bacteria but I can save you a lot of wasted time and effort and you could have done something meaningful.

As it is this is just a waste.

*************************************************************

The tester asks at the end of the original post “Did I miss anything”

The answer is: Yes, you missed everything.

The results of this series of tests is what a microbiologist or person experienced in the culturing and bottling of bacteria would expect.

The conclusions are completely wrong because they rely on the incorrect interpretation of the results.

Furthermore, since these tests/results masquerade as ‘science’ they ought to be critically reviewed as one does with real science. Which I will do and show that the experimental designed is flawed in mostly every case.

Basically, as I will point out, when all is considered every conclusion in this post is bogus which is not surprising as the person doing the testing has no knowledge, experience or capability to correctly design and conduct the experiments.

Why the results are the way they are – the short answer is that the wrong concentration of bacteria was used in nearly every case.

Why is this important? Because in order to successfully have bacteria survive long periods of time in a bottle you need to add preservatives to the liquid. The preservatives keep the bacteria in the dormant spore form. If you didn’t add preservatives the bottle would eventually blow-up on the shelf because of the gases produced. Bacteria cannot be kept in pure water (deionized or distilled water) due to the osmotic difference between the water and the bacteria cell, the bacteria die. So the water has to have some hardness, alkalinity, salt, etc. in it. If you put bacteria in this water in a bottle the bacteria will first consume the oxygen, then nitrate, then sulfide and so forth as the redox value of the water drops. At each stage gas is produced. So you don’t want the bacteria to sporulate while in the bottle. To prevent this you use preservatives.

The dosage for Waste-Away is 10 ml per 10 gallons or 1 ml per gallon or 1 ml per 3,785 ml or 0.00026 ml of Waste-Away per ml of water.

While the amount of Waste-Away used in the various tests was not always disclosed chances are pretty high it was a lot more than 0.00026 ml/ml.

There is a reason we state what amount to use – to dilute out the preservative so the cells will activate. So another error in this testing the using too much liquid – more is not better.

So:
Experiment 1 - added too much Waste-Away solution
Experiment 2 - added too much Waste-Away solution
Experiment 3 - not applicable, I think
Experiment 4 – probably too much Waste-Away solution added – (but a dosage is not given but ‘repeated dosed of WA’ ) in fact so little information on the methods of this test are given – see below
Experiment 5 - no dosage data given
Experiment 6 - no dosage data given, assume this is undiluted liquid from the bottle
Experiment 7 - chemical analysis of correctly diluted liquid, no culturing done
Experiment 8 - added too much Waste-Away solution


So in Experiments where dosing is given too much Waste-Away solution was added but this series of test also suffer from multiple errors in basic experimental design:

Experiment 1 – There is no positive control. The tester (and reader) assume the aquarium grunge can be degraded. But science does not assume. We do not know if the material can be degraded. There is always some material left that cannot be further degraded. No product was able to degrade this – maybe it’s not the products but the design.

Experiment 2 – Again no positive control and how do you know you have the right micro-nutrients available to the bacteria. Unless you can show that something can degrade the material you have shown nothing.

Experiment 3 – What is the significance of this test. The liquid does not contain significant amounts of orthophosphate or nitrate. That is by design. But in eyes of the tester is this good or bad – we don’t know.

Experiment 4 – We don’t know the dosage but “repeated doses are given” and in any case the chart makes no sense. How could anything consume 20, 40 or 60 ppm oxygen? Water does not hold that much oxygen. There is not enough information on the methods to know anything about this test. Yes, the lines look nice but what do they really mean?

Experiment 5 – there is no positive control. Plus shouldn’t the oxygen concentration start high on day 0 (the water is oxygen saturated) and as bacteria activity increases, consuming oxygen, the line should drop not increase over time. The tester says the “consumption of organics” but did not measure organics and has not shown that any method they use is a substitute of organic consumption determination.

Experiment 6 – they don’t wiggle – no, because the bacteria are still in spore form. This is another meaningless result.

Experiment 7 – seems to be the same as Experiment 3 but no methods are given

Experiment 8 – Again no positive control that shows that the made-up ‘bacteria-freindly (sic) media can actually culture bacteria. This is an assumption and we all know what assuming does. Where are the measurements from day 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4? Why aren’t they given? It is assumed the aquarium water has bacteria but this is not actually proven. Maybe the media was insufficient and the aquarium water added needed micro-nutrients and that caused the cloudiness by growing bacteria already in the vials. There is no way to tell.

In summary, the lack of basic microbiology knowledge and how bacteria are preserved in bottles combined with poor experiment design renders the conclusions of these test worthless.

Quite a response Dr Tim!

From the first read through, I gathered that the bottled bacteria spores are preserved to such a degree that they are shut down quite thoroughly, but diluting the preservative to the recommended level will allow them to grow.

I will need to read this a couple times before I can fully weigh both sides of the debate here.

 

[biom]

Dear @taricha your work is definitely not a waste of time to me as a regular reefer. Thank you for doing this for helping our community to understand better what is in the products we are using and how/if they work.

Will somebody who knows exactly what is in the bottle do the experiment in another way or follow another protocol? Sure, and that is the point - if they dont want somebody to run such "blind" tests they are free to list the ingredients of their products on the label, and then the test will be more accurate.

So well done! At least now we know that Waste Away contains a very strong preservative that needs to be diluted 3800 times before allowing bacteria to grow. Do I want this strong preservative in my tank? Well I dont know, because still I dont know what is it.

Thank you very much once again and keep the good work!

 

[Dan_P]

Hello All:

Here are my comments to this post.

You want to test my products fine. How about contacting me so you can design a series of tests that actually mean something. I know you might learn something and have to change you bias and pre-conceived notions - that's being open minded and willing to learn.

I willingly share my experience and knowledge - all you have to do is ask and be patience as I have a few others things to do. No, I am not going to give you the technical secrets I have learned in over 30 years of growing bacteria but I can save you a lot of wasted time and effort and you could have done something meaningful.

As it is this is just a waste.

*************************************************************

The tester asks at the end of the original post “Did I miss anything”

The answer is: Yes, you missed everything.

The results of this series of tests is what a microbiologist or person experienced in the culturing and bottling of bacteria would expect.

The conclusions are completely wrong because they rely on the incorrect interpretation of the results.

Furthermore, since these tests/results masquerade as ‘science’ they ought to be critically reviewed as one does with real science. Which I will do and show that the experimental designed is flawed in mostly every case.

Basically, as I will point out, when all is considered every conclusion in this post is bogus which is not surprising as the person doing the testing has no knowledge, experience or capability to correctly design and conduct the experiments.

Why the results are the way they are – the short answer is that the wrong concentration of bacteria was used in nearly every case.

Why is this important? Because in order to successfully have bacteria survive long periods of time in a bottle you need to add preservatives to the liquid. The preservatives keep the bacteria in the dormant spore form. If you didn’t add preservatives the bottle would eventually blow-up on the shelf because of the gases produced. Bacteria cannot be kept in pure water (deionized or distilled water) due to the osmotic difference between the water and the bacteria cell, the bacteria die. So the water has to have some hardness, alkalinity, salt, etc. in it. If you put bacteria in this water in a bottle the bacteria will first consume the oxygen, then nitrate, then sulfide and so forth as the redox value of the water drops. At each stage gas is produced. So you don’t want the bacteria to sporulate while in the bottle. To prevent this you use preservatives.

The dosage for Waste-Away is 10 ml per 10 gallons or 1 ml per gallon or 1 ml per 3,785 ml or 0.00026 ml of Waste-Away per ml of water.

While the amount of Waste-Away used in the various tests was not always disclosed chances are pretty high it was a lot more than 0.00026 ml/ml.

There is a reason we state what amount to use – to dilute out the preservative so the cells will activate. So another error in this testing the using too much liquid – more is not better.

So:
Experiment 1 - added too much Waste-Away solution
Experiment 2 - added too much Waste-Away solution
Experiment 3 - not applicable, I think
Experiment 4 – probably too much Waste-Away solution added – (but a dosage is not given but ‘repeated dosed of WA’ ) in fact so little information on the methods of this test are given – see below
Experiment 5 - no dosage data given
Experiment 6 - no dosage data given, assume this is undiluted liquid from the bottle
Experiment 7 - chemical analysis of correctly diluted liquid, no culturing done
Experiment 8 - added too much Waste-Away solution


So in Experiments where dosing is given too much Waste-Away solution was added but this series of test also suffer from multiple errors in basic experimental design:

Experiment 1 – There is no positive control. The tester (and reader) assume the aquarium grunge can be degraded. But science does not assume. We do not know if the material can be degraded. There is always some material left that cannot be further degraded. No product was able to degrade this – maybe it’s not the products but the design.

Experiment 2 – Again no positive control and how do you know you have the right micro-nutrients available to the bacteria. Unless you can show that something can degrade the material you have shown nothing.

Experiment 3 – What is the significance of this test. The liquid does not contain significant amounts of orthophosphate or nitrate. That is by design. But in eyes of the tester is this good or bad – we don’t know.

Experiment 4 – We don’t know the dosage but “repeated doses are given” and in any case the chart makes no sense. How could anything consume 20, 40 or 60 ppm oxygen? Water does not hold that much oxygen. There is not enough information on the methods to know anything about this test. Yes, the lines look nice but what do they really mean?

Experiment 5 – there is no positive control. Plus shouldn’t the oxygen concentration start high on day 0 (the water is oxygen saturated) and as bacteria activity increases, consuming oxygen, the line should drop not increase over time. The tester says the “consumption of organics” but did not measure organics and has not shown that any method they use is a substitute of organic consumption determination.

Experiment 6 – they don’t wiggle – no, because the bacteria are still in spore form. This is another meaningless result.

Experiment 7 – seems to be the same as Experiment 3 but no methods are given

Experiment 8 – Again no positive control that shows that the made-up ‘bacteria-freindly (sic) media can actually culture bacteria. This is an assumption and we all know what assuming does. Where are the measurements from day 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4? Why aren’t they given? It is assumed the aquarium water has bacteria but this is not actually proven. Maybe the media was insufficient and the aquarium water added needed micro-nutrients and that caused the cloudiness by growing bacteria already in the vials. There is no way to tell.

In summary, the lack of basic microbiology knowledge and how bacteria are preserved in bottles combined with poor experiment design renders the conclusions of these test worthless.

I reread both your post and the @taricha post. I have several topics to discuss with the both of you, but let’s start with the topic of the spore inhibitor. Two points

(1) You failed to provide any data on the spore inhibitor to support your claim that taricha added too much WasteAway

(2) Experiment 8 appears to indicate that the spores fail to grow

If a scientist is going to critique another’s work, it is common practice to provide supporting data for the counter claim. I fully appreciate the importance of trade secrets in your business. At a minimum, a plot of spore germination time versus concentration of inhibitor, or whatever results demonstrate a minimum effective dose, would not seem like a threat to your revenue and support your claim that too much WasteAway inhibits the product, i.e., bacteria growth. And if it is not a trade secret, tell us what the inhibitor is.

I reread experiment 8 where in taricha centrifuges WasteAway from the liquid to determine what part each fraction plays in his tests. The solid presumably contains the spores and the supernatant contains the inhibitor and medium to carry the spores. The results of his test seem to indicate that the pellet, which presumably is the spores removed from the inhibitor, shows no biological activity as judged by oxygen consumption. And contrary to what you posted, there is indeed a control in the experiment to demonstrate to a fair degree that the medium is bacteria “friendly”. Taricha inoculates the sterile medium with tank water, thus showing that the medium supports bacteria growth. Louis Pasteur would have been proud.

 

[Miller535]

@DrTim , I would not expect KFC to give me their recipe for their chicken. Nor do I expect you to tell me everything that is in your waste away. But can you please shed some light on waste away and explain it to us so that we understand what it does and doesn't do. There are some big claims on this bottle, like help's reduce slime algae and cyano, increases orp, helps skimmer work more effectively, helps clean clogged sandbed and filters. Especially the last part, I think that's why the tester wanted to see a reduction in the sludge. Possibly give us what you think is a better way to test it. I would also like to understand why the PH dropped so significantly after I used it the one time. And I only used a half dose as directed on the bottle. And I do not have much visible algae at all, and do routine water changes and sand bed syphoning. Thank you

 

[Copingwithpods]

Wow, just read all this and the only thing I find more disappointing than than the results is DrTims response to it. Downright belittling and insulting in my opinion. This was a great chance to shed some light on the subject, offer advice, give some constructive criticism and respectfully voice your opinions on the results. You sir failed at all of the above.

@op, thank you so much for putting this together. In a hobby full of snake oils we definitely need more unbiased research into what we are putting in our tanks, I don't think anyone here wants the secret crabby paddy formula, just a rundown of what's in it and what we can legitimately expect from it. Would love to see MB7 up next.

 

[taricha]

Hello All:

Here are my comments to this post.
...

Thanks for the reply!
Look forward to going through your comments.

In the meantime... is there an experiment that you can suggest that would demonstrate the bacteria in a bottle of WA doing something other than what the media in WA does?

 

[Rick Mathew]

Wow, just read all this and the only thing I find more disappointing than than the results is DrTims response to it. Downright belittling and insulting in my opinion. This was a great chance to shed some light on the subject, offer advice, give some constructive criticism and respectfully voice your opinions on the results. You sir failed at all of the above.

@op, thank you so much for putting this together. In a hobby full of snake oils we definitely need more unbiased research into what we are putting in our tanks, I don't think anyone here wants the secret crabby paddy formula, just a rundown of what's in it and what we can legitimately expect from it. Would love to see MB7 up next.

I totally agree..

I have read his response several times and although I am not technically qualified to give a direct response to his individual arguments, I can say the tone and content is very unprofessional. It is one thing to review and critique experimental methods and agree or disagree with the findings but it is another thing all together to attack the experimenter with phrases such as "Furthermore since these test/results masquerade as science" .... "I can save you a lot of wasted time and effort and you could have done something meaningful" and "The lack of microbiology knowledge....Combined with poor experiment design.... as well as his posting the quote from George Bernard Shaw...All of these are totally uncalled for and make one suspicious of his motives...

Not at all cool...

It is a shame cause as you stated we have a chance to learn a great deal and is that not our goal?? IMO

 

[taricha]

Dr. Tim's response (in post 80) to my initial write-up on a series of Waste Away experiments seems to have muddied the water and may leave many wondering how much we understand about WA. I'll try to clarify.

In my initial description, I suggested two possible ways the WA might be acting in the tests and in our aquariums: as a nutrient additive that feeds the existing bacteria already in the system - OR - as a probiotic that inoculates the system with bacteria that were not already there. The experiments supported the first hypothesis. Dr Tim objected.

Dr. Tim suggested that the data from the experiments could not be trusted for 2 reasons.
The first was that the experiment protocol used too much WA. He claimed that the WA bacteria spores included a preservative to prevent spore activation in the bottle.
The second reason given was that the experiments did not have sufficient controls to generate reliable data. Let's review those objections.

Dr. Tim stated without providing any data to support his claim, that the dilution of WA down to the recommended dose of 10mL per 10 Gal was important to reduce the concentration of the inhibitor and allow the spores to activate. He implied that stronger concentrations than this were detrimental. Experiment 5 (as well as Experiment 4 and "bonus experiment 1" in post 27) all did use the recommended dilution, but experiment 5 results are worth revisiting in detail.
Left is the original chart I posted for experiment 5, Right is with the control that was used as a baseline also shown.
[typo corrected: y-axis label was incorrectly "O2 concentration" when it should have been "O2 consumed"]

In this experiment, one of the runs ("WA-pellet") involved separating the spores completely from the inhibitor by centrifugation, and then subjecting them to oxygen replete aquarium water - conditions that should have activated them. The spores failed to grow as evidenced by the lack of Oxygen demand - essentially identical to the control ("Cntl"). Furthermore, another run had these separated spores re-combined with the separated media in WA ("WA-media+pellet") and it again showed no oxygen demand from the spores - essentially identical to the separated media ("WA-media").
This data, with the issue of dilution removed supports the notion that Waste Away is not inoculating the aquarium with bacteria.
As for Dr. Tim's other concern, the lack of sufficient controls, lets review the protocols.

In experiments 1&2, what we would call grunge was subjected to a WA treatment. It was not digested. Dr. Tim objected that there was no positive control, meaning that the grunge might not be digestible by anything and so the failure of WA should not count against it. This is somewhat hypocritical given that we frequently refer to this matter as grunge or similar, Dr. Tim knows we do, and makes claims for the product that strongly suggest that it can remove it, but then suggests it's not digestible when the product doesn't.

For experiments 3 and 7 the there aren't "controls" because these are standard test protocols used to test for various substances in WA in support of hypothesis 1 - that WA is a nutrient additive.

The control in experiment 4 is the initial Biochemical Oxygen Demand of the medium. An alternative to the “self as control” approach would have been to run a separate container of tank water and dose RODI instead of WasteAway.

Experiment 5 uses plain WA (“WA- Whole”) and plain tank water ("Cntl") as the controls and experiment 6 uses untreated WA as the control.

In experiment 8 the control was the positive result in the test of the sterile medium to support bacteria growth (increased turbidity).


To recap, there is indeed credible experimental evidence describing the way Waste Away actually behaves.

 

[Sisterlimonpot]

First thing I thought when I read your article is, "Did you try to contact Tim to share your findings?"

I'm in no position to critique your testing procedures but was able to follow along, I felt that although you provided a lot of tests, there wasn't a tangible evidence or conclusion.

I'm glad to see Dr Tim chime in because out of respect I think this article should've afforded his input prior to submission. Or at least given him the opportunity to review it beforehand.

Dr Tim's response was appropriate and offered great insight as to why the initial experiments were flawed. Hopefully, instead of critiquing his method of delivery, people can appreciate the level of knowledge and information he provided and use it to yeild better results from these experiments.

 

[Dan_P]

First thing I thought when I read your article is, "Did you try to contact Tim to share your findings?"

I'm in no position to critique your testing procedures but was able to follow along, I felt that although you provided a lot of tests, there wasn't a tangible evidence or conclusion.

I'm glad to see Dr Tim chime in because out of respect I think this article should've afforded his input prior to submission. Or at least given him the opportunity to review it beforehand.

Dr Tim's response was appropriate and offered great insight as to why the initial experiments were flawed. Hopefully, instead of critiquing his method of delivery, people can appreciate the level of knowledge and information he provided and use it to yeild better results from these experiments.

You have a good point about getting Dr. Tim’s input. I disagree with how to view Dr. Tim’s response.

The way a response is delivered sets the tone for all subsequent debate. A bellicose and disrespectful response is not going to engender a respectful future discussion. No one is exempt from showing common courtesy. I believe the cornerstone of R2R‘s success is the expectation that a post will be taken seriously and dealt with respectfully.

 

[Sisterlimonpot]

I can't speak for Dr Tim, however from his response, I gather that his perspective is that tericha is a bit out of his realm, and didn't beat around the bush to tell him so. I don't take that as being disrespectful. I get put in my place on an almost daily basis, and prefer and respect the curt approach.

I understand the "safe space" mentality but also think that the way Dr Tim responded was appropriate. I mean as a writer of an "article" you have to understand the weight of your words, the accusation that there isn't any bacteria in this product and here's the test to prove it, is a bit presumptuous. There are a lot of r2r users that are uneducated in this field, and to write a piece shrouded in possibly wrong or faulty procedures, offering no controls and then adding a bunch of charts, the readers are going to walk away thinking what they read was fact and view tericha as an authority on the subject. Dr Tim offers a different perspective.

If I were Dr Tim I would want to make sure my response carried weight as well. Just look at some of the previous posts, people talking about throwing their unused bottles away, the words "snake oil" was thrown around, that's all in response to this "article".

I personally walked away from reading the article as an accusation towards the product without definitive proof... or at least I wasn't convinced. Not sure if it was scrutinized through peer to peer review but at the very least he should've affording Dr Tim the right to read and respond before it was published. It definitely would've saved some embarrassment.

With all that said, I have to defer to the experts in this field, and urge people not to focus on the way the Dr Tim responded, but instead discuss the points he made.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I can't speak for Dr Tim, however from his response, I gather that his perspective is that tericha is a bit out of his realm, and didn't beat around the bush to tell him so. I don't take that as being disrespectful. I get put in my place on an almost daily basis, and prefer and respect the curt approach.

I understand the "safe space" mentality but also think that the way Dr Tim responded was appropriate. I mean as a writer of an "article" you have to understand the weight of your words, the accusation that there isn't any bacteria in this product and here's the test to prove it, is a bit presumptuous. There are a lot of r2r users that are uneducated in this field, and to write a piece shrouded in possibly wrong or faulty procedures, offering no controls and then adding a bunch of charts, the readers are going to walk away thinking what they read was fact and view tericha as an authority on the subject. Dr Tim offers a different perspective.

If I were Dr Tim I would want to make sure my response carried weight as well. Just look at some of the previous posts, people talking about throwing their unused bottles away, the words "snake oil" was thrown around, that's all in response to this "article".

I personally walked away from reading the article as an accusation towards the product without definitive proof... or at least I wasn't convinced. Not sure if it was scrutinized through peer to peer review but at the very least he should've affording Dr Tim the right to read and respond before it was published. It definitely would've saved some embarrassment.

With all that said, I have to defer to the experts in this field, and urge people not to focus on the way the Dr Tim responded, but instead discuss the points he made.

I just want to clarify one thing.

This thread was just a thread documenting his experiments. It was not written as an "article". It is also not a news story.

Someone (not the author) later chose to make it an article, and later changed their mind. It is no logner an article.

So I don't think the author had any obligation to seek out the company viewpoint, but I agree it can sometimes be valuable.

I have written many reef articles and hundreds of thousands of posts. In some cases they have been contentious with company reps claiming problems with what I did.

In not one case did I ever ask a company for their opinion before I wrote and published it (even when they sometimes supplied the product for testing), and not once did their subsequent rebuttals change the interpretation of my experiment, even when the company owners or reps were extremely agitated. In one case, with a Seachem owner and an experiment relating to aluminum release by Phosguard, I did do an additional experiment at their request which confirmed my original conclusion. Consequently, I do not agree that such requests to the company are needed. That said, they can be useful in some cases.

 

[Sisterlimonpot]

I just want to clarify one thing.

This thread was just a thread documenting his experiments. It was not written as an "article". It is also not a news story.

Someone (not the author) later chose to make it an article, and later changed their mind. It is no logner an article.

So I don't think the author had any obligation to seek out the company viewpoint, but I agree it can sometimes be valuable.

I have written many reef articles and hundreds of thousands of posts. In some cases they have been contentious with company reps claiming problems with what I did.

In not one case did I ever ask a company for their opinion before I wrote and published it (even when they sometimes supplied the product for testing), and not once did their subsequent rebuttals change the interpretation of my experiment, even when the company owners or reps were extremely agitated. In one case, with a Seachem owner and an experiment relating to aluminum release by Phosguard, I did do an additional experiment at their request which confirmed my original conclusion. Consequently, I do not agree that such requests to the company are needed. That said, they can be useful in some cases.

It makes sense that it wasn't intended to be an article. I've read many of your articles and not once did I walk away thinking that you were subjective in your findings, although i'm in no position to say otherwise, you do have a knack for conveying facts.

Let me ask these questions, is it safe to assume that preservatives need to be added to prevent the "bacteria to sporulate"? If so, should that've been fundamental information that a person conducting tests know? And in knowledge of that, would the tests that were performed be any different from the initial set of tests?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

It makes sense that it wasn't intended to be an article. I've read many of your articles and not once did I walk away thinking that you were subjective in your findings, although i'm in no position to say otherwise, you do have a knack for conveying facts.

Let me ask these questions, is it safe to assume that preservatives need to be added to prevent the "bacteria to sporulate"? If so, should that've been fundamental information that a person conducting tests know? And in knowledge of that, would the tests that were performed be any different from the initial set of tests?

I do not know if it is true, but it makes sense and thus, enough dilution of the product is needed to properly test it. I have not worked through the tested dilutions to know how they compare to the directions for use.

 

[griff500]

I was pleased to see that 'Dr Tim' had responded until I had finished reading the response. I would have liked 'Dr Tim' to have engaged more constructively. The part talking about preservatives and the dilution required to activate was interesting but if Randy doesn't know then I certainly won't.

Perhaps the OP could dilute as indicated and see if anything different can be concluded, but I get the feeling this thread will go in a disappointing direction.

 

[Dan_P]

I do not know if it is true, but it makes sense and thus, enough dilution of the product is needed to properly test it. I have not worked through the tested dilutions to know how they compare to the directions for use.

Keep in mind that in experiment #5, the spores were completely separated from from the medium by centrifugation , i.e. the inhibitor, and they showed no oxygen demand or growth. The entire issue about proper dilution is completely eliminated. That is a surprising result for a product that is being sold as a bacteria additive.

The conclusion that there are no live bacteria in the product is technically correct. Endospores are not living bacteria. And if you cannot get the endospores to germinate, then there really are no bacteria, living or potential

 

[Dan_P]

I can't speak for Dr Tim, however from his response, I gather that his perspective is that tericha is a bit out of his realm, and didn't beat around the bush to tell him so. I don't take that as being disrespectful. I get put in my place on an almost daily basis, and prefer and respect the curt approach.

I understand the "safe space" mentality but also think that the way Dr Tim responded was appropriate. I mean as a writer of an "article" you have to understand the weight of your words, the accusation that there isn't any bacteria in this product and here's the test to prove it, is a bit presumptuous. There are a lot of r2r users that are uneducated in this field, and to write a piece shrouded in possibly wrong or faulty procedures, offering no controls and then adding a bunch of charts, the readers are going to walk away thinking what they read was fact and view tericha as an authority on the subject. Dr Tim offers a different perspective.

If I were Dr Tim I would want to make sure my response carried weight as well. Just look at some of the previous posts, people talking about throwing their unused bottles away, the words "snake oil" was thrown around, that's all in response to this "article".

I personally walked away from reading the article as an accusation towards the product without definitive proof... or at least I wasn't convinced. Not sure if it was scrutinized through peer to peer review but at the very least he should've affording Dr Tim the right to read and respond before it was published. It definitely would've saved some embarrassment.

With all that said, I have to defer to the experts in this field, and urge people not to focus on the way the Dr Tim responded, but instead discuss the points he made.

Common courtesy has taken such a nose dive recently. Dr Tim was not being curt. He was being disrespectful. Here’s why.

Dr. Tim’s response was an attempt to bully the audience into not considering the data. One obviuos bully technique used was the ad hominem attack. Dr. Tim does not know @taricha and to say what he did about the experimenter served no good purpose. Rather than address the scientific data, he belittles the experimenter. Sure, he made a cursory critique of the experiments, but it was first year graduate student quality. Another bully technique used, very popular since 2016, the cry of fake news, although disguised as “fake knowledge” in this case. The focus on Dr. Tim’s response is appropriate. He brought hubris not scientific leadership to this discussion.

This discussion we are having right now could have been about the data. We could be debating the merits of the experiment controls. We could be having fun! Instead like many discussions today, we are talking about problems with common courtesy.

By the way, nice to meet you. I don’t think we have had exchanges before. Enjoy your writing. Dan

 

[taricha]

Let me ask these questions, is it safe to assume that preservatives need to be added to prevent the "bacteria to sporulate"? If so, should that've been fundamental information that a person conducting tests know? And in knowledge of that, would the tests that were performed be any different from the initial set of tests?

This is a good set of Questions.
You can read in this thread where Dr Tim has previously said that his bacteria survive in a bottle (One and Only) just fine because they have no N in the bottle and go dormant but don't form spores and need no preservative. So it's not "fundamental" that Bottled bacteria must be spores with preservatives. Nor is it fundamental that the preservatives would be added at hundreds (thousands?) of times the necessary concentration so that dilution by only a factor of 200 or 1000 still leaves them unable to grow, but 3,800 dilution is required for growth.

Let's stipulate Dr Tim's statements are correct about the preservative. Would the tests have gone differently with or without the preservative? Mostly no. Only test #8 could have gone differently with / without preservative he described. Why?
Experiment 1 and 2 were material that Dr Tim and I agree is mostly not digestible by bacteria.
And Experiment 4, 5, and "bonus experiment 1" already were done at the correct recommended dose 1mL in a Gal and 1/8mL in 0.5L, as I pointed out in my response to his criticism. Experiment 3 & 7 dose not applicable. So the entire preservative argument can only possibly explain 1 result. Experiment 8 got 1drop in 10mL or ~20x recommended dose.

Someone (not the author) later chose to make it an article, and later changed their mind. It is no logner an article.

So I don't think the author had any obligation to seek out the company viewpoint, but I agree it can sometimes be valuable.

Interesting turn of events! I totally understand the position of the admins. With the manufacturer critiquing the methods, and me not writing up a "materials and methods" section (was already plenty long for a forum post), it's hard for someone else to defend posting as their article.