An Open Challenge To Ianho -

[TwoTankAmin]

I spent hours writing a detailed response to Ianho in this thread http/www.fishforum...20#entry3313565

Then I decided I was wasting my time and would be further cluttering up a thread inappropriately, so here is where I decided to take this conversation.

Ianho you made the following comment in that thread:

TTA with all respect, we cannot critique these articles as they are only abstracts. I have to pay to read both articles, reading an abstract is not good enough, this is what we got taught in our first year at university. The abstract doesn't explain HOW the experiment were done, it doesn't go into specific products, we don't know if in anyway the results were skewed cos we can't read them.

If you click the first abstract there's a article by you mate Dr Tim...there's your evidence of a company doing there own research.

First, you have repeatedly made references to Dr, Hovanec being my "mate" etc. I have never met the man, nor spoken with him on the phone. I have exchanged emails with him 3 times- the first when it was to ask if I could purchase his ammonium chloride without buying the bacteria. Most of the content of the other two exchanges I reprinted on this site and you have read and commented on them if my old memory serves me. To say he is my "mate" is off the mark. Also, none of my links in that post leads to anything by Hovanec. Especially not any of the 1st 3.

I do believe his co-authored work is some of the only pure aquarium related research out there you can find. His bacterial products are based on his research papers. The patents he and his co-researchers hold in the USA and overseas are based on a lot of that research. What bacteria goes into his bottles is the bacteria from his research.

You have repeatedly called his products and research into question. So now its my opportunity to try to make your first year university professors very proud of you. The full and complete texts, graphs, charts, photographs, methods and conclusions, every piece of information you claim you need to critique these two paper has been freely and fully available for a number of years now.

AOB paper- http/aem.asm.org/c...1.full.pdf+html

NOB paper- http/www.timhovane...les/page8_2.pdf

I realize it may take you some time to wade through them, but I am patient. Heck, I am basically a nice guy and I don't want to overtax you, pick either one, you don't need to do both. And since this is the scientific section of the forums, when you rspond, you don't have to "dumb" things down in your responses. Make them as technical as needed and if I don't understand what you might say, I do know who to ask who will, and they can explain it to me.

Ianho, with all respect, the stage is yours, dazzle us with science.



ps I would like to post one tiny snippet from the NOB study as it might influence your decision which paper to choose, especially since this paper was written over 4 years before Bio-Spira was released:

"Three of the aquaria (the treatment group) were each given doses of 8 ml of bacterial additive (Cycle; Rolf C. Hagen Inc., Mansfield, Mass.) on the first day and once every 7 days afterwards for an additional 3 weeks. The other three aquaria were the control group and did not receive an additive."

 

[TwoTankAmin]

Based on his statements in this thread http/www.fishforums.net/index.php?/topic/395060-fish-in-cycle/page__st__20__gopid__3326551#entry3326551 I am adding OldMan47's name to this challenge as he apparently also doubts that the above research is accurate or its conclusions valid. So, OldMan, show us what is flawed or wrong with those studies since they are the bacteria Dr. Hovanec puts into his bottles of One and Only Nitrifying Bacteria.

And l will make you the same offer as I made to Ianho- pick either one to fault. Better yet why don't you and Ianho get together and split them up and provide a double whammy.

 

[atlas101]

Im no expert on this by any means and dont really know which side of the argument I agree with but in regards to the papers above I just had a read through them and the AOB paper isnt really about bottled bacteria from what I can see and from the outset states that the 'Reactors were seeded
with biomass from freshwater nitrifying systems' effectivley used filter media from what I can see.

The NOB paper, I have a few questions about, firstly the bacterial aditive used is named as (Cycle; Rolf C. Hagen Inc., Mansfield, Mass.)and the questions I have about it are:

* How was it treated before it was used? how old was it?, was it refrigerated prior to use?
* Im assuming if this paper was the first to identify nitrospira then surely any commercial additive at the time would of contained nitrobacter not nitrospira as that was the general theory at the time?
* What else does the additive contain other than bacteria and ammonia? - the report actually indicates that - 'It is possible that the addition of bacterial mixtures supplies vitamins and other nutrients which generally stimulate the growth of the nitrifying assemblages, fostering their growth and development and indirectly stimulating nitrite oxidation.'

And if this is the case then their method of filtering the water through activated charcoal would of removed any organic nutrients from the tap water in the controls which could of slowed the rate of bacterial reproduction even if just compared with bog standard tap water with no additive?

Overall the paper does seem to support the use of that particular bacterial additive but could the same results be replicated by just adding extra nutrients to the tank? and it says nothing about how long bacteria can last in a bottle, as far as I can see they dont mention how old the additive they used was, it could of been manufactured the day before they bought it or 2 years before? and im sure this would have an effect of some sort.

 

[Aqua Tom]

Oh come on, that is a mighty high horse you are sat on there. You can add me as well if you want. Although I wont be prooving or disproving the science behind it, I have some paint I would rather watch dry.

Tom

 

[TwoTankAmin]

AquaTom - why would I add you? You offered nothing scientific to this thread. If you can't argue the science, what exactly is it you are contributing to this discussion? Oh I see you are the threads official Paint drying observer. I think the reason you will not be "proving or disproving the science" is you lack the ability, not the desire. I highly doubt you actually even read either paper.

Atlas- let me address your comments:

the AOB paper isnt really about bottled bacteria from what I can see and from the outset states that the 'Reactors were seeded
with biomass from freshwater nitrifying systems' effectivley used filter media from what I can see.

The paper is about identifying the AOB bacteria in aquariums. So exactly where do you suggest one acquire a variety of AOB in order to do this experiment? Of course you have to get them from functioning nitrifying systems. Note they did not limit the study to just samples from lower level ammonia systems, they also used two samples that were dosed in the 40-60 mg/l range as opposed to the others dosed at lower levels. This is how they got a variety of AOB to start the study with. The AOB bacteria that goes into Safe Start and One and Only are the ones identified in this study. That is the connection to bottled bacteria. You can not bottle something you have not first identified as belonging in the bottle.

How was it treated before it was used? how old was it?, was it refrigerated prior to use?

I'm assuming if this paper was the first to identify nitrospira then surely any commercial additive at the time would of contained nitrobacter not nitrospira as that was the general theory at the time?

Yes it did, and the paper said exactly that. (In 1997 when the research was done nobody refrigerated this stuff, nobody knew how long it would last etc.) However, the study indicates first, "Commercial additive.The addition of a commercial bacterial mixture which contained Nitrobacter sp., but not Nitrospira sp., did not result in the detection of Nitrobacter species by oligonucleotide probe hybridization experiments (Fig. 8). How-ever, a band which comigrated with a control derived from pure Nitrobacter DNA could be detected in the original commercial mixture by DGGE analysis (data not shown)."

Second, the research showed that "The commencement of nitrite oxidation coincided with the appearance of the putative nitrite oxidizing Nitrospira-like bacterium. The results lend support to the conclusion of an earlier study, which suggested that a subdivision proteobacterial NOB (Nitrobacter types) were not major components of nitrite oxidation bacterial populations in freshwater or marine aquaria (9)." Because there was some accellerating of nitrite oxidation in the Cycle dosed tanks, the authors speculated as to why since they did not have the Cycle bottle contents analyzed except for nitrifying bacteria. Most importantly, regarding the nitrobacter they did detect in the Cycle bottle before dosing: "Results regarding the beneficial effects of the addition of a bacterial additive containing Nitrobacter species were equivocal. While nitrite levels in treated aquaria decreased earlier than those in nontreated aquaria, there was no evidence that Nitrobacter species were actively growing in these aquaria."

Bear in mind the purpose of the research was to identify the actual NOB that colonize aquariums and are there for the longer term, not to prove that Cycle worked or not, nor what was in cycle beyond the bacterial component. So all they did was offer a potential reason for the acceleration of nitrification in Cycle dosed since it was not due nitrobacter colonization.

It is also interesting to note that this research was performed in 1997 and Bio-Spira, the first product to contain the Hovanec et al identified AOB and NOB was not brought to market until June 2002 about 5 years after the NOB paper and a year after the AOB paper.

Finally, regarding your comment:

And if this is the case then their method of filtering the water through activated charcoal would of removed any organic nutrients from the tap water in the controls which could of slowed the rate of bacterial reproduction even if just compared with bog standard tap water with no additive?

You have misread the paper. The carbon filtering was only performed on the tap water before it was added to the tanks. There were no carbon filters on the tanks. The tanks basically all got the same things where fish were used as the ammonia source- food was put in in controlled doses and the tanks ran on UGF filters. Fish food is organic, fish waste is organic. There were also tanks used that did not contain fish but were instead dosed with ammonium chloride. But remember, the autotrophic bacteria do not feed on organics, the feed in inorganic carbon and ammonia or nitrite (some autotrophs will feed on light). Heterotrophic bacteria require organic food sources.

Take a look at the study by Schramm et al performed about a year later which also identified nitrospira strains. "Identification and Activities In Situ of Nitrosospira and Nitrospira spp. as Dominant Populations in a Nitrifying Fluidized Bed Reactor" http/aem.asm.org/c.../64/9/3480.full It basically confirms the Hovanec et al research regarding NOB.

Atlas- I am glad that somebody actually took the time to read the papers before making their comments. Its too bad others don't follow your example.

 

[atlas101]

Im not trying to say hes wrong about nitrospira, my point was that if adding a nitrobacter only additive increases the reproductive rate of nitrospira faster than the control then there must be something else in the additive that was used, and if that is the case then these bacteria in a bottle type products may not need any form of bacteria to work as described, they may just be adding 'vitamins and other nutrients which generally stimulate the growth of the nitrifying assemblages, fostering their growth and development and indirectly stimulating nitrite oxidation.'
I would also still like to see some form of objective report on how long nitrospira bacteria can last in a bottle before I make up my mind.

 

[Aqua Tom]

AquaTom - why would I add you? You offered nothing scientific to this thread. If you can't argue the science, what exactly is it you are contributing to this discussion? Oh I see you are the threads official Paint drying observer. I think the reason you will not be "proving or disproving the science" is you lack the ability, not the desire. I highly doubt you actually even read either paper.

 

[ian]

I am honored!

Firstly, i will read these papers, when i get 5 mins. I have a full weekend at work, so will get on it at some piont. There is a few things i need to clear up even before reading them though...

First, you have repeatedly made references to Dr, Hovanec being my "mate" etc.

This has been done once ^^in the thread above. Over in the UK this is a term of endearment. As above his research for me is almost nul and void when selling a product. Take for example, i'm doing research on a drug thats cuts the risk of cervical cancer by half and i'm actually releasing the drug and selling it for $10000000 a packet. I'm going to skew the results. Now this is very very basic i know, but i'm unsure you get this. As i have questioned you before, i'm unsure you are able to critique research properly?? I don't normally do this but, what official quals do you have, i would like to know. This is the scientific section and all.

You have repeatedly called his products and research into question.

I question his products not 'called' them. This is science i'm afraid. I also know what it's like to believe something works and when people question it, it obviously hurts a little. The same happens in religion.


ps, as above i have read the thread and i'm still unsure you're able to critique research properly as Atlas appears to have found loads of flaws already...

 

[minnnt]

My head hurts now... Think i'll PM Tom and see if he has any more paint i can can help him watch.

 

[Aqua Tom]

My head hurts now... Think i'll PM Tom and see if he has any more paint i can can help him watch.

I got buckets of it.

Tom

 

[ian]

right, i have just scanned (as you have intrigued me! and will read it props tomoz) the AOB paper...the first thing that jumped out what the title...

Identification of Bacteria Responsible for Ammonia Oxidation in Freshwater Aquaria

this for me has no baring to whether bottle bacs work or not, this tells me the different kind of bacs in an aquarium.

The next thing i did was to read the names of the authors and i read...

A Havonec

this automatically gets me thinking...but it doesn't matter really as he's only identifying what bacteria, not how long it's shelf life is etc etc

the next thing that jumped out at me was the word...

Reactor

again, it doesn't really matter as the article you have given me has no baring on what i want to know, i don't need to know all the different bacs, i need to know whether a bac bottle will work. Anyways, what does this reactor consist of??



I'm usure i need to go on with that article really, i shall have a go at the other one tomorrow. I know you are trying to prove Nitrosospira exists?? If so you don't need to prove that to me, as i'm sure it does.

 

[minnnt]

Be round in 5...

 

[lock77]

So what exactly is Nitrosospira?

 

[bae1994]

Who else is hoping Ianho leaves a conclusive comment then locks it that would be using mod privileges to there full potential

Bae

 

[minnnt]

Who else is hoping Ianho leaves a conclusive comment then locks it that would be using mod privileges to there full potential

Bae