Question Regarding Tetra Safestart

[Prime Ordeal]

Prime, I actually read the opposite. You're not supposed to use those detoxifiers, as it also kills the bacteria from TSS.

No, Prime is definitely inhibitory to some extent on the nitrifiers, especially when overdosed as is necessary here, but it won't kill them.

There is no option but to use it though; the bacterial additives work by allowing ammonia and nitrite to rise to what are unquestionably dangerous levels for fish and to negate this toxicity a detoxifying dechlorinator must be used (something the manufacturers of the products disgracefully neglect to mention).

Also note that these bacterial additives are meant to be used with very low initial stocking levels and with ammonia tolerant species such as danios.

 

[ZoddyZod]

I am sure it must work, some of the time, otherwise they wouldn't be able to market it.

you are putting a lot of faith in the relevant regulating authorities to actually check that the product meets what it says on the pack.

I've read quite a few success stories actually. It all depends on how it's done.

interesting - can you reference those stories so we can have a read about the methods used?

 

[ZoddyZod]

Read carefully what I said Cezza. The advice is in no way dangerous as I clearly point out the need for a good ammonia and nitrite detoxifying dechlorinator for the fish's health.

A bacterial-additive cycle is one where a bacteria-in-a-bottle product is used to cycle the tank - hardly needs explaining really does it?

The issue I have is the speed of the cycle - if it still takes 8 weeks to cycle using this product, then why not negate using it altogether and just detoxify the ammonia/nitrite as you say?

I am yet to be convinced that any of these products speed up the cycling process in the way they state. Also, I don't think any of them state in the instructions that you MUST use an ammonia/nitrite detoxifying product in conjunction, which clearly is a pre-requisite.

 

[ian]

or fish which is another prerequisite, as you are clearly just doing a fish in cycle, the stuff doesn't speed the cycle up as the cycle is already happening with fish in it. As Prime clearly states, you must use hardy fish...

i wish i could discuss what certain company reps feel about these products.

 

[Prime Ordeal]

Read carefully what I said Cezza. The advice is in no way dangerous as I clearly point out the need for a good ammonia and nitrite detoxifying dechlorinator for the fish's health.

A bacterial-additive cycle is one where a bacteria-in-a-bottle product is used to cycle the tank - hardly needs explaining really does it?

The issue I have is the speed of the cycle - if it still takes 8 weeks to cycle using this product, then why not negate using it altogether and just detoxify the ammonia/nitrite as you say?


Who said it takes 8 weeks, that would be ridiculous?

Here's a very good thread from the Seachem forum: http/www.seachem.com/support/forums/showthread.php?t=3983, in particular read troglodyte's posts starting on page 2 and look at the graph of his cycle with Seachem Stability here: http/s1213.photobucket.com/albums/cc478/troglodyte1/?action=view&current=seachemgraph001.jpg. He had a glitch, which he was able to explain away (eventually), but if you ignore that then the tank cycled in 12 days! A bit different from your 8 weeks and considerably shorter than any bacterial additive-free cycle I have done or seen done (that being 18 days for me).

Even more interesting is that Seachem Stability doesn't contain what are the currently accepted nitrifiers that exist in an aquarium. So the argument that bacterial starters don't work and that, in particular, bacterial starters that don't contain the 'correct' nitrifiers don't work is pure hogwash!

I have seen many reports on the forums (no I can't remember where) from people who clearly benefitted from using bacterial additives. And by benefited I mean that they were cycled in anything form a couple of days to a couple of weeks (at most).

Furthermore these products are used worldwide in public aquaria and I'm pretty sure that if they were as worthless as you say then the news would be out by now.

I'll be blunt here, comments like yours and ianho's on this thread and from countless others on other threads really annoy me, based as they are on little technical understanding of the process and, worse, the fact that you've never used any of these bacterial starters.

You merely parrot what everyone else says without any justification.


I am yet to be convinced that any of these products speed up the cycling process in the way they state. Also, I don't think any of them state in the instructions that you MUST use an ammonia/nitrite detoxifying product in conjunction, which clearly is a pre-requisite.


This is a particular bugbear of mine. The problem (for the manufacturers) is that if they state that ammonia and nitrite detoxifiers are a necessity, then they are openly admitting that those toxins will rise to lethal levels - something that is hardly likely to increase their sales of the product. That, along with the fact that during the distribution there is a good likelihood that the maximum temperature tolerances, typically 0-30C, may be exceeded and end-users who do not know how to use these products is what leads to the unjustifiable conclusion, by many, that the products do not work.

 

[ian]

To state there is no tech understanding is beyond me. I think it's others that really have no ability to critique. Something I think others should learn. Linking a sea hem website clearly wouldn't wash in the world of science, neither would a non peer reviewed article clealy paid for by the company that makes this stuff. I suggest you gain some understanding before hog washing our comments.

 

[sadguppy]

To state there is no tech understanding is beyond me. I think it's others that really have no ability to critique. Something I think others should learn. Linking a sea hem website clearly wouldn't wash in the world of science, neither would a non peer reviewed article clealy paid for by the company that makes this stuff. I suggest you gain some understanding before hog washing our comments.

You are right ianho - I have worked in the scientific industry and it is amazing how companies pick and choose which studies to fund and publish, and the number that never make it to publication because they didn't show anything exciting or the results went against what the funding company wanted.

Prime Ordeal I think you need to adjust your attitude a little. A newbie comes asking for help - the best advice for them and their fish is to understand the cycling process properly, not put their faith in some bottled magic potion which, based on the experiences on these forums, may or may not work. There was no need to be rude to me - I in fact did dose on prime, 5x the dose as the bottle suggested, however I quickly learned that there is no substitute for clean, fresh water and I would advise any newbie such.

 

[Prime Ordeal]

To state there is no tech understanding is beyond me. I think it's others that really have no ability to critique. Something I think others should learn. Linking a sea hem website clearly wouldn't wash in the world of science, neither would a non peer reviewed article clealy paid for by the company that makes this stuff. I suggest you gain some understanding before hog washing our comments.

Perhaps you could indulge me then and point me to just one peer-reviewed paper which conclusively proves that bacterial starters do not work?

 

[ian]

I don't need to, science will not pay for things that are clearly snake oil. What the point in paying for someone/independent team to do research on something that doesn't work. Thats the reason there isn't any.

 

[sadguppy]

To state there is no tech understanding is beyond me. I think it's others that really have no ability to critique. Something I think others should learn. Linking a sea hem website clearly wouldn't wash in the world of science, neither would a non peer reviewed article clealy paid for by the company that makes this stuff. I suggest you gain some understanding before hog washing our comments.

Perhaps you could indulge me then and point me to just one peer-reviewed paper which conclusively proves that bacterial starters do not work?

I can't do this as I no longer have access to scientific journals however I can tell you that null results are rarely published (less likely to be submitted for publication and less likely to be accepted), which is known as the publication bias. Additionally, null results will never see the light of day if it is the company investing in the product who is funding the study.

 

[Prime Ordeal]

I don't need to, science will not pay for things that are clearly snake oil. What the point in paying for someone/team to do research on something that doesn't work. Thats the reason there isn't any.

There's no point discussing any further with someone who argues at the level of a child.

 

[ian]

Good answer. If in doubt head for the jugular.

Nice discussion and well backed up.

 

[Tolak]

Peer reviewed or otherwise reviewed papers aside, I often wonder why these products don't perform as expected in so many cases. If any other product you purchased, from gasoline to greasy burgers had such a questionable track record of living up to their advertised claims they would be out of business in a hurry. Yet these quick & easy cycling products keep being sold and used. Thinking real world, if one tank of gas out of ten didn’t work properly would you keep using that product? How about if 1 burger out of 10 looked like it had been stepped on by a gorilla?

If these cycling products worked 9 out of 10 times they might be useful, with the claim that 10% of the time they don’t work as advertised. We aren’t seeing that here, on a busy forum, with hands on experience from members spread all over the planet. I’d be surprised if we’re seeing them work half the time.

I wish they would come up with a product that was reliable, and easy to use for someone with a new aquarium, as very often that new aquarium has been purchased by someone new to aquatics. Being new to aquatics some of the basics of science behind it is fine, most likely they aren’t going to want to read terminology heavy peer reviewed scientific studies. They do want as easy & enjoyable of a time as possible, with as little hassle in the setup, stocking & so on as can be found. Advising the use of a product with reliability issues does not provide that. Providing links to tough to digest scientific research from the start probably makes them wonder what in the world they will need to do for homework concerning their tank a month or several months from now.

Remember, this is the Your New Freshwater Tank section. Please save the peer reviewed scientific studies for the Scientific section, and the bickering nonsense for our PM system.

 

[ZoddyZod]

Who said it takes 8 weeks, that would be ridiculous? Apologies, I should have stated "as an example" for how long a fish-in cycle takes

Here's a very good thread from the Seachem forum: http/www.seachem.com/support/forums/showthread.php?t=3983, in particular read troglodyte's posts starting on page 2 and look at the graph of his cycle with Seachem Stability here: http/s1213.photobucket.com/albums/cc478/troglodyte1/?action=view&current=seachemgraph001.jpg. He had a glitch, which he was able to explain away (eventually), but if you ignore that then the tank cycled in 12 days! A bit different from your 8 weeks and considerably shorter than any bacterial additive-free cycle I have done or seen done (that being 18 days for me).

call me suspicious, but seeing positive comments about a product from the manufacturers own forum is not something I could accept as evidence, but I am very interested to hear more about your own experience and exactly how the aquarium/filter was set up and the process followed to acheive an 18 day cycle.


I'll be blunt here, comments like yours and ianho's on this thread and from countless others on other threads really annoy me, based as they are on little technical understanding of the process and, worse, the fact that you've never used any of these bacterial starters.

You merely parrot what everyone else says without any justification.[/b][/i]

that's not true in my case - I used Nutrafins product to set up my first ever aquarium. Result? 12+ week fish-in cycle, so it didn't exactly match what it promised on the bottle, which is the basis for most of my sceptisism for these products



I am yet to be convinced that any of these products speed up the cycling process in the way they state. Also, I don't think any of them state in the instructions that you MUST use an ammonia/nitrite detoxifying product in conjunction, which clearly is a pre-requisite.


This is a particular bugbear of mine. The problem (for the manufacturers) is that if they state that ammonia and nitrite detoxifiers are a necessity, then they are openly admitting that those toxins will rise to lethal levels - something that is hardly likely to increase their sales of the product. That, along with the fact that during the distribution there is a good likelihood that the maximum temperature tolerances, typically 0-30C, may be exceeded and end-users who do not know how to use these products is what leads to the unjustifiable conclusion, by many, that the products do not work.


I don't agree with this at all - what you are saying is that the manufacturer of the product does not need to tell the consumer how to use the product correctly. They are gambling that the consumer knows that ammonia and nitrite are toxic to fish and taking the gamble even further by assuming that they know which products are required to detoxify them, thus making their product safe to use. You are also stating that they are not responsible for the correct conditions being met during transportation & storage, which again I don't agree with. If I sold frozen chickens, would it not be my responsibility to ensure that they arrived at the point of sale frozen, and to ensure that they had been kept frozen during transport? Temperature controlled transport and storage facilities exist, and if a product requires to be kept in a certain temperature range then it is the responsibility of the manufacturer and then the seller to ensure these are met. I apologise for the over-simplified comparisions, but I still think they make valid points.

 

[CezzaXV]

I suspect that any published journals which do claim such products work will be paid for by the companies that make them. I'm doubting they will be truly objective in the sense of comparing results to a fishless or fish-in cycle, and I'd imagine all they'd do is prove it makes a small difference, if indeed such a product did exist.

In my experience, such products do not work. I cannot back this up with scientific fact, all I know is that I got some free with my first tank so used it but didn't see any differewithhold what I'd expect without using it.

I'd also like to point out that it's generally accepted that cycling will still occur with levels of ammonia our hobbyist test kits can't even detect, so I feel the point about letting the ammonia rise is moot.

Prime Ordeal, I also stand by my point that telling a beginner that it's acceptable to let ammonia rise to 2-3ppm is bad advice, especially since you didn't give much more detail than that but felt it necessary to jump down my throat when I pointed it out so. Remember, the OP thinks 1ppm of ammonia isn't that bad, and this is in no way a dig at the OP, just a statement of fact that they don't know fully what theyre doing and I'm not sure advising them to use an obscure, debatable cycling method as opposed to the tried and tested methods is what's going to help.