Question Regarding Tetra Safestart

[Bignose]

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?

whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa here. This is NOT right. One does NOT jut assume a claim is true until a paper comes out that proves it wrong. It is 100% the other way around. One should be skeptical of any claim, until objective evidence can be shown that it is correct.

Farcical example: if I told you that the face on Mars was carved by an invisible unicorn that travels among the stars with a rocket powered by faerie wishes, and you really going to believe that until it is proven wrong? Are you really going to hold that belief until every cubic millimeter of space is searched and no invisible unicorn found? I would certainly hope not. No, the onus is on me to demonstrate evidence why other should believe that.

This is a very basic tenant of science. The promoter or believer of an idea must provide compelling objective significant evidence that shows his idea is likely true. We do NOT assume something is true until it is proven wrong.

 

[OldMan47]

Tolak, I think I can answer your underlying question. It is based on the eternal hope that the real world facts are not real. (yes real are not real, we are all free to hope in any society) Since people want to bypass the real time involved in a proper cycle, they will latch on to anything that promises them a significant shortening of that time, regardless of how often it is proven to be wrong. I view it much like a typical "get rich quick" scheme as shown on late night TV ads where the only people who truly get rich quick are the people selling the methods.
The only instant cycle product that I would rely on is when you are getting some mature filter media from a fellow member. That is a place where I would expect a near perfect clone of filter media. In that case you receive filter media with live bacteria of the right kind and you simply multiply it to serve your own tank.

 

[TetraGuppyFTW]

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?

Here's one example: Tetra SafeStart REALLY WORKS

Now of course this person could be making it up, but if you browse around the web you'll find some success stories as well as some failures. This one was the best example IMO because this person did all the things an uninformed beginner would do and it ended up working out.

 

[sadguppy]

So what have your readings been like?

 

[TetraGuppyFTW]

Well just tested, looks like I'm somewhere between 2 and 4 ppm. I have the API test kit and it says to put the test tube against the white area beside the color chart and it looks like it's somewhere between there. It's become obvious that my SafeStart experiment failed. I guess the next step is a water change. I feel terrible that I'm putting my fish through this, I gambled and I failed. I was thinking maybe buying another bottle and adding it asap and hoping for a miracle.

 

[OldMan47]

We have yet to see it truly work here, even though Tolak was more generous in his estimate of possible successes.

 

[TwoTankAmin]

Please, show me how these studies were paid for by the manufacturers of the products involved or those of a competing product.


Meded Rijksuniv Gent Fak Landbouwkd Toegep Biol Wet. 2001;66(3a):79-86.
Use of a nitrifying culture to shorten the activation time of biofilters for the removal of ammonium and nitrite in freshwater aquaria.
Grommen R, Van Hauteghem I, Van Wambeke M, Verstraete W.
Source
Laboratory of Microbial Ecology and Technology, Ghent University, Coupure Links 653, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium.


Abstract
The removal of ammonia (NH3) through nitrification in intensive aquaculture systems is an important process as the total ammonia nitrogen (TAN, compromising NH4+ and NH3) concentration often is the key limiting water quality parameter in these intensive aquaculture systems. In this study, the performance characteristics of a suspension of nitrifying cells (named ABIL) have been explored This aqueous suspension contains a highly active, nitrifying microbial consortium and is stable for several months when preserved at 4 degrees C. Tests were performed in freshwater at lab scale (70 L, 20 - 24 degrees C). Results showed that the application of the consortium at a dose of 5 mg Volatile Suspended Solids (VSS) L(-1) assures a total removal of ammonium and nitrite species from 10 mg N L(-1) to below the detection limit within a period of four days. Experimentally, at a substrate level of 10 mg TAN L(-1), a rate of biological ammonium and nitrite conversion of the order of 0.3 - 0.5 g TAN g(-1) VSS(-1) d(-1) could be achieved by the consortium in the freshwater aquaria systems tested Provided adequate aeration and dissolved oxygen levels of 6 mg per L or more, no important intermediary nitrite concentrations were noticed Only a small amount of TAN was not found back as nitrate and might have been lost due to ammonia stripping After 12 months preservation of the inoculum at 4 degrees C, no important decrease in ammonium removal activity and only a minor decrease in the nitrite removal rate of the consortium were noticed.

PMID:15954566 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
From http/www.ncbi.nlm....pt=abstractplus


An improved nitrifying enrichment to remove ammonium and nitrite from freshwater aquaria systems
by R Grommen, I Van Hauteghem, M Van Wambeke

Aquaculture (2002) Volume: 211, Issue: 1-4, Pages: 115-124

• ISSN: 00448486
• DOI: 10.1016/S0044-8486(01)00883-3

Abstract
The total ammonium nitrogen (TAN) concentration is often a key limiting water quality parameter in intensive aquaculture systems. Removing ammonia (NH3) through biological activity is thus an important objective in aquaria and aquaculture system designs. In this study, the performance characteristics of a suspension of nitrifying cells (named ammonia binding inoculum liquid, ABIL) have been explored. This aqueous suspension contains a highly active, nitrifying microbial consortium that can be used to shorten the start-up period of a biofilter. Tests were performed in freshwater at lab scale (70 l, 20-24 C). Results showed that the application of the consortium at a dose of 5 mg volatile suspended solids (VSS) l-1 assures a total removal of ammonium (NH4+) and nitrite species from 10 mg N l-1 to below the detection limit within a period of 4 days. Experimentally, at a substrate level of 10 mg TAN l-1, a rate of biological ammonium and nitrite conversion of the order 0.3-0.5 g TAN g-1 VSS-1 day-1 could be achieved by the consortium in the freshwater aquaria systems tested. Provided adequate aeration and dissolved oxygen (DO) levels of 6 mg l-1 or more, no important intermediary nitrite concentrations were found. Only a small amount of TAN was not recovered as nitrate and might have been lost through ammonia stripping. Pre-inoculating the nitrifiers in polyurethane (PU) sponges and installation of such sponges in the freshwater aquaria did not improve the effect compared to adding the consortium directly to the water. After 12 months preservation of the inoculum at 4 C, no important decrease in ammonium removal activity and only a minor decrease in the nitrite removal rate of the consortium were noticed.

From http/www.mendeley....quaria-systems/

If you are wondering what ABIL is --> http/www.avecom.be...e.php?name=home



Novel application of nitrifying bacterial consortia to ease ammonia toxicity in ornamental fish transport units: trials with zebrafish

1. A.K.S. Dhanasiri[sup]1[/sup],
2. V. Kiron[sup]1[/sup],
3. J.M.O. Fernandes[sup]1[/sup],
4. Ø. Bergh[sup]2,3[/sup],
5. M.D. Powell[sup]1[/sup]

Article first published online: 27 MAY 2011

DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2011.05050.x

© 2011 The Authors. Journal of Applied Microbiology © 2011 The Society for Applied Microbiology


Abstract
Aims:  To evaluate whether two commercial nitrifying bacterial consortia can function as biocontrol agents in ornamental fish transporting systems.

Methods and Results:  The consortia were applied in a simulated set-up using zebrafish as the model organism in three trials. The efficacy of the bacterial consortia in controlling the ammonia level was validated by measuring water quality parameters such as total ammonia, nitrate and pH of the transport water. The bacterial community structure in the transport unit was studied using denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis. The consortia tested improved the nitrifying activity that in turn facilitated the reduction of ammonia that had accumulated during the transport. Bacterial profiles revealed the presence of both ammonia-oxidizing and nitrite-oxidizing bacteria in the transport bags.

Conclusions:  The application of the consortia during the transportation of zebrafish could profoundly improve the water quality by curbing ammonia accumulation.

Significance and Impact of the Study:  The potential of applying nitrifying bacteria as a bioremediation practice during the transport of ornamental fish has been demonstrated and this innovative approach contributes to the amelioration of current fish welfare in ornamental fish trade.

Author Information

1. Faculty of Biosciences and Aquaculture, University of Nordland, Bodø, Norway
2. Department of Biology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
3. Institute of Marine Research, Bergen, Norway

[sup]*[/sup]Viswanath Kiron, Aquatic Animal Health Research Group, Faculty of Biosciences & Aquaculture, University of Nordland, 8049 Bodø, Norway. E-mail: [email protected]


From http/onlinelibrary...5050.x/abstract
(You have to pay to see the full report.)



It isn't really about cycling, but a related issue sort of. Would you like to see one that investigates the use of products that are supposed to help with slime coats? You know that Aloe Vera stuff etc. Hmmmm.........

Abstract Fish are coated with an external layer of protective mucus. This layer serves as the primary barrier against infection or injury, reduces friction, and plays a role in ionic and osmotic regulation. However, the mucus layer is easily disturbed when
fish are netted, handled, transported, stressed, or subjected to adverse water conditions. Water addi-tives containing polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) or proprietary polymers have been used to prevent the deleterious effects of mucus layer disturbances in the commercial tropical fish industry, aquaculture, and for other fisheries management purposes. This paper reviews research on the effectiveness of water conditioners, and examines the contents and uses of a wide variety of commercially available water
conditioners. Water conditioners containing polymers may reduce external damage to fish held in containers during scientific experimentation, including surgical implantation of electronic tags. However, there is a need to empirically test the effectiveness of water conditioners at preventing damage to and promoting healing of the mucus layer. A research agenda is provided to advance the science related to the use of water conditions to improve the condition of fish during handling and tagging.

Abstract above from here http/www.springerl...4850u102164201/
Full pdf is here http/www.springerl...01/fulltext.pdf

 

[sadguppy]

I am almost certain that the funding for these studies will be from those companies with a vested interest in the results, who will also have a say about whether they make it to publication, and that's without the publication bias I mentioned above. I know this isn't possible to prove, but think who else would fund this? It has no applications for health or disease in humans after all and there is unlikely to be a single funder out there who wants specifically to prove or disprove this who is not 'in the business'/

At the end of the day, it looks like it didn't work for the OP in this instance, and it didn't work for me. Thus, despite the research I remain sceptical.

 

[ian]

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. The last PDF has no bearing on cycling. Again, i'm yet to be blown away.

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.