When you would NOT buy or use bottled bacteria

[brandon429]

I live pretty much solely on anecdotal thread patterns, if you’re seeing such a pattern working with dinos it sounds plausible to me


you aren’t trying to address ammonia noncontrol and if any dosers show any patterning against the top scourge in reefing, then study it further. Hundreds are willing to try anything to prevent loss and I know of no dosers along these lines harmful to add. There is no harm in trying for sure.

thank you for posting. Any motion forward against dinos control will bring happiness to hundreds of reefers it’s really among top reasons for for willing quits in reefing.

if someone finds a doser like mb7 can help with dinos I’m all for it.

 

[MnFish1]

@brandon429 I have tried to easily find the thread by @Mstevens1 - would you mind just summarizing his experiment?

I don't disagree with any of your concepts - EXCEPT - I think it goes against the laws of science to suggest that surface area alone is the limiting factor of a cycle using no bacteria, added ammonia, etc.

Bacteria cannot grow without 'food'. Thus I do not believe that it can be reliably shown that after 60 days 'every tank' will have maximal bacterial load. This would be the experiment:

Experiment tank
1. Take a tank - put in dry rock (an appropriate amount for a tank that size)- lets say a 100 gallon tank - in an LFS.
2. Let it sit 60 days - with proper water chemistry, etc, everything is 'new' - filtration, etc.
3. Add 15 4 inch tangs on day 60.

Do you think that in a week all of those tangs will still be living?
My guess is 'no'.

Experiment tank 2.
1. Same 100 gallon tank, dry rock, filtration, etc etc
2. Add an ammonia source. Add bottled bacteria
3. Continue to add ammonia for lets say 45 days, lets say up to 1 ppm/day (i.e. keep the level there - don't keep adding 1 ppm/day)
4. Add 15 4 inch tangs

Do you think this tank has a better chance than tank 1? I do - because with a constant food source available - bacteria will continue to grow until all the surface area is 'covered'.

 

[brandon429]

that's fair and a good concept to test.
post your link that shows lack of ammonia control, ruling out lack of surface area. use a reef tank link so the context lines up

here's his post/MSteven1:

Bacteria in a bottle, Myth or Fact

Did the online calc indicate to use one mil in the tank for your gallonage

www.reef2reef.com

he sat rocks in water for two months then they self cycled, free, and passed on calibrated ap testing plain as day.


call it algae if you want, but post a link for your take above either way/one showing invisible algae doing the work

as his box of rocks sat after two months no feed in water getting cycled, zero ammonia



then after a light load test with straight ammonium chloride liquid



then the motion back to calibrated zero ammonia



All that was done with no bottle bac

We are discussing times we dont have to buy bottle bac in this thread, and if someone has two months to wait for a free cycle that's time #10

 

[brandon429]

btw anyone claiming we're being ripped off by bottle bac sellers should have their claims tested, appreciate the post. I only want to practice what the most critical and discerning folks at rtr would allow to pass for decent reefing.

The sole point of referencing MSteven1's post is to show that totally unassisted cycling is possible. Given two months in water, the environment has provided an open topped reef with all its required bacteria and feed, for cycling.

The reason bottle bac exists is to speed up that wait, you and I don't really disagree much on the matter. directly above is api showing zero on a sample of rocks in question, then bumped up as a load test with straight ammonia showing the second pic change color, then back to total yellow empty again for the motion proof of self cycling.

 

[Rmckoy]

In a established system ?

with nutrients out of balance . To reduce nitrates adding nitrifying bacteria does help drastically to decrease notrates .
but little effect on phosphates

 

[brandon429]

thank you for posting Rmckoy

 

[Garf]

that's fair and a good concept to test. I give links for my claims, and restate the links, so asking for one to back up that counter claim above is fair as well.
post your link that shows lack of ammonia control, ruling out lack of surface area. use a reef tank link so the context lines up this time.

here's his post/MSteven1:

Bacteria in a bottle, Myth or Fact

Did the online calc indicate to use one mil in the tank for your gallonage

www.reef2reef.com

he sat rocks in water for two months then they self cycled, free, and passed on calibrated ap testing plain as day.


call it algae if you want, but post a link for your take above either way/one showing invisible algae doing the work

as his box of rocks sat after two months no feed in water getting cycled, zero ammonia



then after a light load test with straight ammonium chloride liquid



then the motion back to calibrated zero ammonia



All that was done with no bottle bac, and you linked ten university studies in that thread already showing the process/interesting to ask about it here.

We are discussing times we dont have to buy bottle bac in this thread, and if someone has two months to wait for a free cycle that's time #10

But surely API testing evidence doesn’t count, lol

 

[ninjamyst]

So there's no need for Dr. Tim's waste away in an established tank? Or to routinely dose MB7?

 

[homer1475]

Only time I have ever used bottled bacteria is to "speed" up the cycle. If I was not in a hurry, just some bottled ammonia, raw shrimp, or ghost feeding is all thats needed to start the cycle going.

The bacteria need a food source in order to multiply, but that bacteria is present everywhere in the air. So just providing a food source will help them populate your tank.

Peridically adding bottled bacteria in an already established tank, is pretty pointless IMO.

 

[brandon429]

Thats truly a market-impacting question thanks for posting. I see it this way

the goal is invasion remediation and or systemic cleaning when someone doses waste away. Its legitimate to experiment with; nobody is calling into question the basic ability to control ammonia as are 99% of false stuck cycle posts so by all means anyone who looks for patterns in reef tank outcomes can work with waste away or other digesting products to see if they work.

regarding specific tests I'll offer this comparison of waste away, and non waste away means of handling tank invasions and waste control.

the rip clean, how are we doing with invasion control and waste control long term:

Official Sand Rinse and Tank Transfer thread

If you are reading this thread to cure a tank invasion from a link I sent you, we do not need to identify your type of invasion here we do not need you to test anything at anytime regarding nitrate, phosphate etc Above all, we do not need to see a microscope slide picture of your invasion at...

www.reef2reef.com

and waste away:

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

[Edits for clarity - 4/21 - shown in brackets] I've been looking into debris that accumulates in the sand (Dan's Thread for that discussion) in our tanks and ways to "clean it up" whatever that means. In the process Waste Away by Dr Tim and similar "grunge-eating" products became of interest...

www.reef2reef.com

the rip clean is a fine combatant against dosers for the means of invasion control and long term waste handling, it is the antithesis to bacterial presence. to rip clean a tank is the most bacterially-insulting thing you can do while adding waste away is adding bacteria/assuming there are some in the mix.

which method collects the most happy reef aquarists--removing mass or adding it


we welcome all formal studies on rip cleans as well... someone run fifty across different reefs and chart what happens in excel.

I would choose a rip clean over any doser in order to get the most life out of a reef tank but that's a fully biased assessment too. there comes a reef tank size where its not practical to deep clean, so doser experimentation has legitimacy still in the hobby.

plus what we do wastes a lot of tap water in the sand rinsing part. Pod lovers hate our methods, I hear

 

[MnFish1]

The bacteria need a food source in order to multiply, but that bacteria is present everywhere in the air. So just providing a food source will help them populate your tank.

It is my impression that @brandon429's point is that no food is required - but merely let a tank sit with rocks and water - and it will be cycled to support a full load of fish, etc.

 

[brandon429]

we need someone to test it with fish but I keep getting turned down for obvious ethical reasons/but this was how most dry start/coral skeleton reef tanks in a Miami Bank in 1983 were started, fill n waits




its already been tested by another decade before retail bottle bac was all the rage. we are spoiled as buyers now, irretrievably spoiled.

 

[brandon429]

Homer's type of cycle mentioned is from post #7 here page one.

thats a fed cycle, but no bottle bac and as Homer mentioned that speed-feeds the natural cycling bac that get in any open-topped reef tank

MSteven1's is no feed, no bottle bac--the extreme unassisted version is best way I can think to label it



*I keep mentioning open topped because Dr. Reef directly made an experiment that showed a sealed off system can indeed starve bacteria to the point of no performance. a sealed vase setup on his mantle for 14 mos with only bottle bac added, no feed, was starved bone dead when tested for oxidation ability on month 14 after setup. dead.

I had predicted in chats to him the cycling bac would be alive through anything lol that turned out not to be the case he found some limits.

MSteven's sole design difference was open-topped vs capped/sealed top.

 

[MnFish1]

that's fair and a good concept to test.
post your link that shows lack of ammonia control, ruling out lack of surface area. use a reef tank link so the context lines up

here's his post/MSteven1:

Bacteria in a bottle, Myth or Fact

Did the online calc indicate to use one mil in the tank for your gallonage

www.reef2reef.com

he sat rocks in water for two months then they self cycled, free, and passed on calibrated ap testing plain as day.


call it algae if you want, but post a link for your take above either way/one showing invisible algae doing the work

as his box of rocks sat after two months no feed in water getting cycled, zero ammonia



then after a light load test with straight ammonium chloride liquid



then the motion back to calibrated zero ammonia



All that was done with no bottle bac

We are discussing times we dont have to buy bottle bac in this thread, and if someone has two months to wait for a free cycle that's time #10

Brandon - the link to MStevens 'experiment' - is a thread with multiple pages - not exactly what he did. So - like I said - I tried going through the link - it was quite difficult - so I asked for specifics. (Perhaps you left out a couple specifics):

1. What kind of rocks? Just plain 'Dry rocks' like ordered from BRS?
2. I assume he added nothing else to the tank (an old filter, sand, etc)
3. How much was his 'light load' of ammonia - I presume its somewhere between .25 and .5 ppm
4. How long did it take to get back to zero.
5. How big was the tank/how many pounds of rock?

More importantly - what do you think would have happened if he added a 'heavier' load of ammonia? like lets say 2 or 3 ppm?

I dont know if you realize this - or perhaps I'm using the system incorrectly - but - when you post a thread - it goes to the beginning of the thread - some of which have >50 pages - I don't think many people want to read that many posts to see what you mean (though - I did try). I thought there used to be a way to search for a poster 'in this thread only' - for some reason I could not find that button today.

 

[brandon429]

That's a great summary I really want to ask him just that, I too could use the refresh. watch for the post there

if he's to be used as the baddest cycling experiment in the last 20 years we need that proofing of setup again.

 

[MnFish1]

we need someone to test it with fish but I keep getting turned down for obvious ethical reasons/but this was how most dry start/coral skeleton reef tanks in a Miami Bank in 1983 were started, fill n waits




its already been tested by another decade before retail bottle bac was all the rage. we are spoiled as buyers now, irretrievably spoiled.

So - the cost of a reef tank 100 gallon - depending on which equipment is minimum $2500 with rock, etc etc. Lets say bottled bacteria costs $100 (I believe its far less).

Why would I make a 2500+++ investment (minimum) - and then wait for 60 days (for a theory) when its been clearly shown that you can add bacteria and fish for a very small amount on day 1?

PS - this is an interesting thread But the problem with all of these threads - is that (unless I missed it) - no one has 'googled' the amount of ammonia produced by a full bioload of fish. There is no thread/proof/anything - that tells me that after 60 days in a tank with no food - that every single surface is totally colonized (that seems to be your theory). It does not make scientific sense, and the experiments done - do not completely mesh because no tank is exactly the same (rock-wise), or bioload-wise.

 

[brandon429]

he states a number of ml's added for free ammonia and we relate that to a pic above, that part you can see in his post / removing that from questions set

 

[MnFish1]

he states a number of ml's added for free ammonia and we relate that to a pic above, that part you can see in his post / removing that from questions set

Yes - I was looking at the color after he added the ammonia - thus I said I assume he added to get .25-.5 ppm (which is how I read that color).

 

[MnFish1]

Let e crystallize my thoughts on some of this - mainly how one experiment does not prove much.

1. Every good experiment has replicates - 2 or 3 or 4 tanks - and is repeatable. So - I do not think (despite the effort - which is awesome) - that we can say 'point blank' that a tank cycles in 60 days with no food.
2. I think people that say its 'unethical' to cycle with fish are also 'out of touch' with science. The reality is, that adding a damsel to a 100 gallon aquarium - and feeding it - while gradually adding more fish slowly - is not unethical - because that damsel will not produce enough ammonia to cause a problem. BUT -
3. My perspective is - that after that damsel has lived in the tank for a month - you could not add 10 tangs - and expect them to do well. It doesnt make scientific sense.

 

[brandon429]

Didn’t you list several university studies in the other thread that backed up unassisted cycling