# Beneficial bacteria proodcts, which do you use?



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

AquaAurora said:


> So when you do a water change or are setting up a tank, you typically buy a bottle of some brand product to get beneficial bacteria into the tank that will eventually settle in and get ammonia and nitrite under control... *what product do you use*?
> I have used a large bottle of an API one and its almost empty so I'm thinking of trying something else and would like to hear what other users have bought and liked.


They are pretty much a waste of money. There is already BB in your tank if it's been started. Plants alone will do the job. The water column doesn't really house much BB. They are on the various surfaces.


----------



## 93145 (Jun 24, 2013)

Pretty much what HOC said. Alot of those products are said to not even contain bacteria that will sustain life in the aquarium. 

As painful as it is just wait out the cycle and keep testing for nitrates. Or just load the thing with plants and go to town!


----------



## micheljq (Oct 24, 2012)

AquaAurora said:


> So when you do a water change or are setting up a tank, you typically buy a bottle of some brand product to get beneficial bacteria into the tank that will eventually settle in and get ammonia and nitrite under control... *what product do you use*?
> I have used a large bottle of an API one and its almost empty so I'm thinking of trying something else and would like to hear what other users have bought and liked.


Never used such a product in 25 years, even for cycling a tank I just throw the water, turn on the filter and wait 4 weeks. Cycle will resolve itself, bacteria will come from air, or tap water, or from my hands, etc.

I use API stress coat from time to time on large water changes to help neutralize chlorine and protect fauna from stress.

Michel.


----------



## Nightspell (May 22, 2013)

Snake oil. Not necessary.


----------



## Chronados (Jan 28, 2013)

The only one I've ever used that actually worked has been Biospira (and I have to say it worked quite well), where it cycled a tank from new in ~ 2 days. Apparently the recipe was sold to Tetra and later modified, and is now sold under the name Safestart. I recently used Safestart and it seems to work fine, though it was not a controlled experiment by any means. The general consensus online seems to be that it works, but not as well as Biospira, which had to be refrigerated. From what I understand, Safestart/Biospira/Dr Tim's are the only formulas that contain the correct species of nitrifying bacteria for freshwater aquariums.

I think the issue people run into with using these products (Safestart in particular) is either a DOA or expired bottle (too much heat or cold in shipping/storage) or a failure to use it properly. Tetra states that you shouldn't dump the stuff into something like 6ppm ammonia, and not to use ammonia locking chemicals like Prime 24 hours before or 7 days after adding Safestart.


----------



## kcoscia (Jul 24, 2013)

I can say that tetra safestart has the correct types of bacteria needed if it is in good enough shape to work


----------



## AquaAurora (Jul 10, 2013)

Thank you all for the feedback.


----------



## crice8 (Aug 2, 2012)

I have had great success with tetra safestart Plus. It has been known to be one of the few with the correct bacteria in it. I highly suggest it. I wanted to speed up the cycle of my new 40 gallon breeder. This product helped me cycle it in less than 2 weeks with fish and Red Cherry Shrimp in it the whole time(=


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

The one thing all of these product's have in common is...they lighten your wallet and mileage varies from poor to worse.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

I'd buy the Betta Water instead. It's on sale at Petco. :icon_roll


----------



## Brian_Cali77 (Mar 19, 2010)

+1 on tetra safe start. Worked well for me. It actually has the peer-reviewed scientific journals to back it up. 

http://theaquariumwiki.com/Dr._Tim_Hovanec

http://www.timhovanec.com/Publications/ScientificPapers/ScientificPapers.html

And here's an interesting read:
http://www.oscarfish.com/article-home/water/71-autotrophic-bacteria-manifesto.html


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Betta water will work too, it doesn't mean you need it.


----------



## Brian_Cali77 (Mar 19, 2010)

Yeah...I only needed tetra safe start when I was setting up my first tank and I didn't have access to established media to "seed" my filter with BB. My cycle stalled, I added TSS and I was cycled the next day....testing meticulously with an API master test kit. Now that I have 8 tanks, 7 of those 8 didn't need TSS. It has its useful purpose.


----------



## Chronados (Jan 28, 2013)

houseofcards said:


> Betta water will work too, it doesn't mean you need it.


By this logic, express shipping on anything is pointless? You'll get it anyways with regular shipping right? :icon_roll If I can spend 15 bucks and save 2-3 weeks of time, it's well worth it to me. Same as picking faster shipping and paying more to get stuff faster.

Impatience aside there will be emergencies where you could really use something like this.

I believe the discussion was about what WORKS, not if you need it. Clearly the demand is there or there wouldn't be 1000 of such products, nor would OP post this thread.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Chronados said:


> By this logic, express shipping on anything is pointless? You'll get it anyways with regular shipping right? :icon_roll If I can spend 15 bucks and save 2-3 weeks of time, it's well worth it to me. Same as picking faster shipping and paying more to get stuff faster.
> 
> Impatience aside there will be emergencies where you could really use something like this.
> 
> I believe the discussion was about what WORKS, not if you need it. Clearly the demand is there or there wouldn't be 1000 of such products, nor would OP post this thread.


Actually my comment has zero to do with speed. That's an assumption YOU made. There are a ridiculous number of ways to get BB in the water. I'm amazed especially in a Planted Tank community people buy this stuff .


----------



## Chronados (Jan 28, 2013)

houseofcards said:


> Actually my comment has zero to do with speed. That's an assumption YOU made. There are a ridiculous number of ways to get BB in the water. I'm amazed especially in a Planted Tank community people buy this stuff .


Except not everyone has access to the amount of BB that you need. You can seed from another filter, but like the word implies, it's seeding it, and will take some time to get to full capacity. I didn't assume anything. Your comment is clearly related to speed, as it normally still takes a while for seeding to kick in. Not every situation has this luxury, and not everyone wants to wait. YOU assumed that everyone had access to said BB in large quantities. From my experience, Biospira, and to a lesser extent Safestart, is like hotswapping a cycled filter onto the tank.

Again, the discussion was not about what you NEED. There's a demand, and certain situations (read: emergencies) that call for it.


----------



## ipkiss (Aug 9, 2011)

AquaAurora: I don't believe it's necessary for water changes.. but,

I always wondered why no one suggested using this stuff to someone new in the hobby who's desperate to get things cycled because they already have animals in the tank before they learned about "cycling." I see all types of suggestions of changing water daily, add seeded filter, don't have one, go on craigslist to find a fellow aquarist, etc. All the while, they've been struggling for 3 weeks to get the right stuff happening. Wouldn't this have helped immensely? This has got to be easier than finding someone with a seeded filter! The theory seems scientifically sound. 

Personally, when I changed my substrate in an established tank to some Mr. Aqua soil, I got a massive spike in ammonia -- whether it's from substrate disturbance or natural leeching -- that wasn't going down for couple days. You'd think an established tank would've taken it better. So I panicked and ran for some fritz zyme (much cheaper than safestart at my LFS) and it seemed to have helped me through my cycle. Whether it was my own bacteria catching up or it was truly the additional bottled bacteria, I'm unsure.

Therefore, my own use was anecdotal but I'd be interested to hear from others who may have done more testing if this is a viable alternative to people struggling for weeks to get their tank started as Chronados suggested.


----------



## Chronados (Jan 28, 2013)

ipkiss said:


> AquaAurora: I don't believe it's necessary for water changes.. but,
> 
> I always wondered why no one suggested using this stuff to someone new in the hobby who's desperate to get things cycled because they already have animals in the tank before they learned about "cycling." I see all types of suggestions of changing water daily, add seeded filter, don't have one, go on craigslist to find a fellow aquarist, etc. All the while, they've been struggling for 3 weeks to get the right stuff happening. Wouldn't this have helped immensely? This has got to be easier than finding someone with a seeded filter! The theory seems scientifically sound.
> 
> ...


Thank you, this is the point I was trying to make. While there's nothing wrong with the standard tactics: fishless cycling, seeding with old filters, etc, etc, there is no reason to be closed to alternative/new approaches. Even fishless cycling with ammonia is a relatively new concept to fishkeeping. In my mind, these bacterial products (as long as they work) are another tool to be used, whether for unexpected situations like a tank crash or simply for time constraints. If it works, and does something better than the status quo, then why should anyone get any flak to deciding how they spend their own money? Who knows, maybe in 10 years everyone will be starting their tanks with some new version of Safestart.

Agreed on the water changes part, I forgot to address that earlier. Unless you are heavily disturbing your substrate or cleaning your filter, or both at the same time, there's really no reason to add Safestart during water changes as most of the bacteria is not in the water itself.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Brian_Cali77 said:


> +1 on tetra safe start. Worked well for me. It actually has the peer-reviewed scientific journals to back it up.
> 
> http://theaquariumwiki.com/Dr._Tim_Hovanec
> 
> ...


Problem is these references including the one for the Georgia Aquarium have very little to do with PLANTED tanks. These are about FISH tanks. Planted tanks are a different animal where water changes and plants will provide the same benefits (assuming some of the claims) where yo can put fish in pretty quickly since the ammonia is consumed by the plants and water changes making it fish safe. The links above, specifically the top one on Tim Hovanec he was a paid employee of Marineland when he developed Biospira/safe start, so hardly an independent piece or research. He is also the creator of the bio-wheel (again a good device for fish tanks, but not necessarily planted ones.) 

The Oscarfish.com piece is obviously not written for the planted tank community in mind. BTW the tetra safe article you linked states very clearly that they recommend a small fish per 10 Gallons after the first few days and then the tank is fully cycled in a few weeks an easy task with plants and water changes, no snake oil required.


----------



## Brian_Cali77 (Mar 19, 2010)

We'll just agree to disagree then... I'm with Chronados on this one. I don't use TSS anymore, only on my first setup. Point being is that it works and the BB strains it contains has made a significant difference is getting my nitrogen cycle to complete expeditiously. Also as Chronados stated, there are many different ways to seed the BB naturally from plants, media, or what have you -- but those take a 'longer' time. This is simply another means to an end, albeit a faster one... which has worked fine for me in the past. All my subsequent tanks were cycled without TSS because I had plenty of seeding material or I would just transfer established filters over.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

I'll agree to disagree on the facts. It's not faster. Not with planted tanks. The cycle is almost irrelevant since the plants take up the difference, helped by WC making the water fish safe. Safe start even says that you can only safety add one small fish for every 10 gallons after the first few days. That is no different than a tank with plants and WC. There are many things tossed around here that are from the old fish tank days and not really relevant to planted tanks. IMO of course!


----------



## Brian_Cali77 (Mar 19, 2010)

houseofcards said:


> The links above, specifically the top one on Tim Hovanec he was a paid employee of Marineland when he developed Biospira/safe start, so hardly an independent piece or research.


Do you know what "peer-reviewed research papers" entail? Although it was written and published by him, it was reviewed by the scientific community. I haven't seen any evidence to contradict his findings... I don't think calling it snake oil counts. 

The definition is at the top of that linked site. 


> _Peer-reviewed means that before the paper was published in a scientific journal it was first anonymously reviewed by other researchers not connected with the lab. These reviewers judged the paper for content and scientific worthiness. Only papers determined to meet sufficient scientific criteria are accepted for publication. This is part of the self-policing of scientists._


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Brian_Cali77 said:


> Do you know what "peer-reviewed research papers" entail? Although it was written and published by him, it was reviewed by the scientific community. I haven't seen any evidence to contradict his findings... I don't think calling it snake oil counts.
> 
> The definition is at the top of that linked site.


You keep holding on to these FISH tank benefits. Show me a PLANTED tank peer review article and I'll weigh it's significance. Getting back to the Betta Water, it works, the fish will swim in it, but it's not necessary.


----------



## Brian_Cali77 (Mar 19, 2010)

Well not everyone wants to start a planted tank, *heavily planted* to gain the benefits from plants taking care of the ammonia and adding in BB to seed the media. When I was a newb, I was very much fish-focused with a low light and lightly planted start. I think the majority of hobbyist start out like that, if not fish-only with faux decor. I even overstocked on fish a bit... So with the absence of a heavily planted tank and with an increased bioload, I think the TSS was a good fit in this particular application ... not just fish-only tanks. Plus, a lot of my first low light 'easy' plants came in those tubes at Petsmart grown emersed. How much actual BB are you going to get from those? 

Conversely, if you were to start a tank with crazy ammonia leaching AS with fast growing plants (obtained from established tanks from other hobbyists or what have you), heavily planted, then yes... I do agree that TSS may not be needed. The copious amount of ammonia from the AS coupled with the infusion of a substantial amount of BB from the plants will make the BB colonies grow fairly rapidly.

Anyways... the point is, going back to the OP, there are products that work (e.g. TSS and Dr. Tims One and Only). They are helpful in certain situations. Are there other ways to do it? Sure! Can you really call this 'snake oil' and make blanket statements without any evidence to support your claims that it doesn't work? You can... but I'm not convinced!


----------



## 93145 (Jun 24, 2013)

Sorry your thread had to get a bit out of hand OP. I hope your question has been answered.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Well newbies are the ones that these products prey on, you don't need a heavily planted tank, moderately planted with WC. The best product in the world that will solve most problems is the water changeWe are on TPT. 

I'll Let people decide by the info in the thread if its worth it.


----------



## jpappy789 (Jul 28, 2013)

houseofcards said:


> You keep holding on to these FISH tank benefits. Show me a PLANTED tank peer review article and I'll weigh it's significance. Getting back to the Betta Water, it works, the fish will swim in it, but it's not necessary.


I don't understand your argument. Are you saying that nitrifying bacteria are not needed altogether in a planted tank? 

In some cases that may be true. In others that is a very dangerous generalization, in which case I fail to see why Dr. Hovanec's research needs to be discredited at all. I agree that it may be a bit self serving (what research isn't?) however not accounting for aquarium plants doesn't mean the bacteria just disappear from the biosphere completely.

Now, whether or not you may want to purchase a nitrifying bacteria supplement depends on 1) your tank setup, 2) your timeframe and 3) your budget. Highly variable.

I'm a huge proponent of fishless cycling and having the patience to do it properly, plants or not. I'd rather not spend my money on something I don't necessarily need either. But I'm not going to say with 100% certainty that bacteria-in-a-bottle products are "useless" or "snake oil" as there are cases where they do work. Accidents happen, sometimes people don't want to wait. That's their choice. The bacteria do have a shelf life, but if packaged correctly you can get a viable bottle.

I initiated the cycle on my first tank, maybe 5-6 years ago, with the original Biospira. There were some bumps along the way, and I wish I had known about the N cycle then...but it worked out eventually.


----------



## Chronados (Jan 28, 2013)

houseofcards said:


> Problem is these references including the one for the Georgia Aquarium have very little to do with PLANTED tanks.


So are you conceding the point that Safestart does do what it's supposed to do in non-planted aquariums?



houseofcards said:


> These are about FISH tanks. Planted tanks are a different animal where water changes and plants will provide the same benefits (assuming some of the claims) where yo can put fish in pretty quickly since the ammonia is consumed by the plants and water changes making it fish safe.


Again, you're the one making all the assumptions. You're *assuming* there's enough plant biomass to absorb the output of the fish. You're *assuming* the plants are doing well (and not dying and adding to the ammonia problem).

By this logic there should never be any ammonia spikes ever in a planted tank right? Why add filters if we don't even need nitrifying bacteria? The plants take in all the ammonia right? 

Even if this WAS true, you're basing your entire balance on the plants doing well. I can assure you every person who's ever run a planted tank has experienced some kind of plant issue.



houseofcards said:


> The links above, specifically the top one on Tim Hovanec he was a paid employee of Marineland when he developed Biospira/safe start, so hardly an independent piece or research.


I suggest you look up the definition of "peer reviewed"



houseofcards said:


> BTW the tetra safe article you linked states very clearly that they recommend a small fish per 10 Gallons after the first few days.


Yeah, no kidding. With all the people claiming snake oil and/or misusing the product why wouldn't they be conservative with their numbers? Ever notice how a chair may be rated for 250lb but it actually holds 500lb? They also say you can use Safestart and dump in an entire tank of cichlids (to spread out aggression as you are supposed to do) *Have you ever even used Safestart?* They are HIGHLY conservative with their figures. Same with Biospira in the past.



houseofcards said:


> Well newbies are the ones that these products prey on


Are you saying I'm a newbie? I'm no expert, and I can't offer you your peer-reviewed research (then again, neither have you), only anecdotal stuff from personal experience, but I can assure you I was not "tricked" into using the product.


----------



## Chronados (Jan 28, 2013)

houseofcards said:


> You keep holding on to these FISH tank benefits. Show me a PLANTED tank peer review article and I'll weigh it's significance.


There's already plenty of material linked here demonstrating the effectiveness in non planted tanks. If you think the nitrifying cycle works any different or isn't needed in most planted tanks:



houseofcards said:


> It's not faster. Not with planted tanks. The cycle is almost irrelevant since the plants take up the difference


then well...then...we have nothing further to discuss. All you've done so far is make a series of assumptions, as detailed in my previous post.

Edit: Misread username on a post, shame on me D:


----------



## Axelrodi202 (Jul 29, 2008)

I just always make sure to have a bunch of plants going in the tank before adding fish.


----------



## Diana (Jan 14, 2010)

If you need the nitrifying bacteria, look for Nitrospira among the ingredients. This is the nitrite-to-nitrate species of bacteria. If a product includes Nitrospira, then you can assume it also has the right species of ammonia-to-nitrite organisms. 

Other sources of these bacteria include the filter media or anything from a cycled, healthy tank. These bacteria will cling to surfaces, so substrate, rocks, driftwood and live or (whisper it: plastic) plants will have some of these bacteria. There is little to no bacteria in the water, unless you just added one of the bottled products. 
These bacteria are also all around, and will find the tank even if you do not add any. You can grow them very well by feeding them ammonia as in the fishless cycle. You do not have to jump start the population. They get going pretty fast, and the tank can be ready to be fully stocked in 3 weeks. 

My favorite way to cycle a new tank is to share filter media from a cycled tank. I will also move the right proportion of the fish so the bacteria and fish population stays balanced. Then gradually add more fish to each tank. 
However, I have also cycled a big canister filter in a bucket, adding ammonia daily to keep the bacteria growing, and have done the fishless cycle in aquariums. When you treat them right these bacteria are very easy to raise.


----------



## acitydweller (Dec 28, 2011)

I am an avid hobbyist who loves to dabble and have used varying products meant for this hobby and others. I have all of the ADA substrate additives, varying sources for bacteria and have used many of these quick starting or bacterial supplementing products. 

There are varying methods of encouraging bacteria growth, many of which can be found in composting products and items for the processing of waste materials as in septic tanks which are applicable in our hobby. Factors like substrate type, acidity/PH, temps, water flow and media should all be considered.

I am currently testing Nite Out II and Special Blend from Microbe-lift. I've had cases where detris accumulated in a layer of substrate and seen it dissipate after dosing with bacter over a two week period in a planted tank. If you are to try any product, make sure the product mentions specific isolating specific strains of bacteria meant for processing nitrates. Bacteria types come in the millions so this is one of the things to look for, Dr Tims has one product which came recommended several times to me but i have never tried. 

Many are quick to criticize how much of this is tossing money away but this is a hobby meant for enjoyment so lighten up.  If i didn't take the time to dabble and advance my experience with LED fixtures, ferts, plants, substrates, types of food, equipment and dyi projects, I could never be in a position to talk about many of these topics. Lets try to stay positive and be supportive k?


----------



## Chronados (Jan 28, 2013)

roadmaster said:


> Not in my view bold statement at all.(truth)


Unless you've done controlled testing on your own for all of them, claiming mileage varies from poor to worse on all bacterial supplements IS a bold statement. *Fact*. Especially considering the scientific literature and anecdotal evidence suggesting otherwise.



roadmaster said:


> These potion's along with what is actually needed,, all empty our wallet's (fish tank's are glass boxes of water we throw money into) and with the bacterial supplement's,,mileage does indeed vary.
> 
> If they worked well for everyone across the board..they would not be able to keep the crap on the shelves.Everyone would be using it .
> My two cent's:icon_cool


I suggest doing a quick google search for reviews for Tetra Safestart. Then tell me it doesn't work well for most people. There's two main factors limiting the widespread use of the couple of these products that actually do work.

1) Not everyone needs it. As has been said a million times (and I completely agree), you can do the same thing with standard fishless cycling. BUT, it's slower (in my experience and per Tetra's claims). AND it can't be used in emergencies. Seeding filters is nice, yes, but not everyone has access to that, and again, it's slower.

2) People yelling snake oil without doing any research or following instructions properly. They try one bacterial supplement, it doesn't work, then they lump everything into the same category.

While I have not used every bacterial supplement out there, I am sure there are good ones and bad ones. Have you used Safestart? Have you seen the peer reviewed articles? Have you made note that the Georgia Aquariums uses it? Have you read the reviews online?


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

Chronados said:


> Unless you've done controlled testing on your own for all of them, claiming mileage varies from poor to worse on all bacterial supplements IS a bold statement. *Fact*. Especially considering the scientific literature and anecdotal evidence suggesting otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I stand by my statement's as factual as per 40 yrs expierience with the supplement's,snake oil's,algae fixes,mela this,pima that, stress this,easy balance,etc,etc,.
You may not like it ,but the product's mileage does vary from poor to non effective,worse,nadda,zip,zilch.
Proved to myself long ago,but hey,,,try em,try em all, I did.Then get back to me .


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Chronados said:


> So are you conceding the point that Safestart does do what it's supposed to do in non-planted aquariums?
> .


You very good at quoting everything I say. Can you please find me my quote where I said that? I didn't think so? How could I concede something I never said. 

Point being this is a planted tank forum. This stuff is a waste in this environment. Your cycle will get started by the various plants, surfaces, etc in the setup. It doesn't have to be full of plants. BTW it's call Safestart and by they're own admission they state, one small fish per 10 gallons and then cycled in a few weeks. You could get the same safe environment in most planted tanks.


----------



## John Simpson (Mar 14, 2013)

what about the forced exclusion idea, where adding bacteria takes away from nutrients that would be used by algae (and the plants), for people who aren't awesome at controlling algae and don't need rapid plant growth using the bacteria for this purpose could be a good tool.

it's interesting how ADA makes the green bacter drops that are not actually bacteria but food for the bacteria so that the bacteria don't eat up all the nutrients for the plants. It's super interesting to think about the competition between algae and bacteria.

I've heard of people that like to add in lots of bacteria after trimming just to make sure not to get an algae bloom. I personally have tried this, (not scientifically) I suppose it works.

I think if you want rapid growth you should keep (supplement) the bacteria in the substrate more than in the water column. having lots of the bacteria in the substrate is really important.


----------



## Chronados (Jan 28, 2013)

roadmaster said:


> I stand by my statement's as factual as per 40 yrs expierience with the supplement's,snake oil's,algae fixes,mela this,pima that, stress this,easy balance,etc,etc,.
> You may not like it ,but the product's mileage does vary from poor to non effective,worse,nadda,zip,zilch.
> Proved to myself long ago,but hey,,,try em,try em all, I did.Then get back to me .


So now you're lumping bacterial supplements with algae fixes, melafix, pimafix, stress zyme, etc as well? You realize these are completely different things right? Why not throw Prime and Flourish in there too as "snake oil" products? They're chemicals too right? Can't trust those sketchy chemical products these days  Algaefix does work actually. Do a google search for Tom Barr's tests on it.

Why would I need to try them all? I'm not the one claiming they all don't work, you are. You're not being logical at all. I'm only making the claim that Safestart does work, and I HAVE tried it. AND it's backed up by quite a bit of anecdotal evidence and scientific literature.



houseofcards said:


> You very good at quoting everything I say. Can you please find me my quote where I said that? I didn't think so? How could I concede something I never said.


...Where did I say you did? I *ASKED* you if you were. I felt you were implying something since you switched over to talking about how it didn't work in planted tanks specifically, so I asked you a *QUESTION* to clarify.

I quote to address each point brought up (or at least try to). I don't just cherry pick arguments.



houseofcards said:


> Point being this is a planted tank forum. This stuff is a waste in this environment. Your cycle will get started by the various plants, surfaces, etc in the setup.


Again, you're literally rehashing the exact same thing. I AGREED with you that you can start a cycle with plants/surfaces/etc. I said Safestart is FASTER and more CONVENIENT. Yes, you can eventually get everything with regular shipping. Why do people pay for express shipping? So argue on that point. Don't make the straw man fallacy.

By "this stuff" do you mean nitrifying bacteria? Are you still making the argument that planted tanks don't need nitrifying bacteria?



houseofcards said:


> BTW it's call Safestart and by they're own admission they state, one small fish per 10 gallons and then cycled in a few weeks. You could get the same safe environment in most planted tanks.


Did you even read my previous post? I literally addressed this exact point when you said the exact same thing:



Chronados said:


> With all the people claiming snake oil and/or misusing the product why wouldn't they be conservative with their numbers? Ever notice how a chair may be rated for 250lb but it actually holds 500lb? They also say you can use Safestart and dump in an entire tank of cichlids (to spread out aggression as you are supposed to do) *Have you ever even used Safestart?* They are HIGHLY conservative with their figures. Same with Biospira in the past.


Furthermore, there's X number of bacteria per a given bottle. If you wanted to add more fish per week, you just add more bacteria. It's a pretty simple concept...


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

I have listed only product's that I have used with little to no effectiveness.
I am employed with local school district, and have prolly set up more class room tank's over the last twenty year's than youv'e had birthday's.
If the product's mentioned worked well for everyone,, then I would not be responding as I have.
Fact is ,,they don't for various reason's, not limited by those with inability to follow direction's.
You wanna keep kicking this dead horse?? Then I'm your huckleberry.
You might wanna pack a lunch.
Ain't but maybe a hundred out of possibly thousand's of thread's on forum's to numerous too mention ,,that poster(s) endorse the magic bacteria in a bottle.
And I ain't one of em.


----------



## Chronados (Jan 28, 2013)

roadmaster said:


> I have listed only product's that I have used with little to no effectiveness.
> I am employed with local school district, and have prolly set up more class room tank's over the last twenty year's than youv'e had birthday's.
> If the product's mentioned worked well for everyone,, then I would not be responding as I have.
> Fact is ,,they don't for various reason's, not limited by those with inability to follow direction's.
> ...


I never questioned your experience, only your logic. Which products are you talking about? Because I'm only talking about Safestart and Biospira, not any of the other stuff you said was "snake oil". You keep talking about this stuff like it's some unexplainable voodoo magic, when the name of the nitifying bacteria is on the label of the bottle itself. There are peer-reviewed articles proving its effectiveness. It's SCIENCE. Look at reviews for the stuff online. All 4.5/5 or greater. I'd say that's pretty much "working well for everyone"

Have you tested Safestart or Biospira?


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

I gotta laugh. This is from a TSS (Tetra Safe Start) promo:

"It is therefore a good idea to not only use Tetra SafeStart when setting up a new aquarium, but also after every major partial water change, each time the filter is cleaned or after treating the tank with medication."

Why, so you can buy more!


----------



## Chronados (Jan 28, 2013)

houseofcards said:


> I gotta laugh. This is from a TSS (Tetra Safe Start) promo:
> 
> "It is therefore a good idea to not only use Tetra SafeStart when setting up a new aquarium, but also after every major partial water change, each time the filter is cleaned or after treating the tank with medication."
> 
> Why, so you can buy more!


They are trying to get you to buy more of their product. Guess what, so is every other company in the entire world. Shocker huh?

What exactly does this have to do with how well it works? That's right, it doesn't, so let's address that and not get into vendor review territory.


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

Chronados said:


> I never questioned your experience, only your logic. Which products are you talking about? Because I'm only talking about Safestart and Biospira, not any of the other stuff you said was "snake oil". You keep talking about this stuff like it's some unexplainable voodoo magic, when the name of the nitifying bacteria is on the label of the bottle itself. There are peer-reviewed articles proving its effectiveness. It's SCIENCE. Look at reviews for the stuff online. All 4.5/5 or greater. I'd say that's pretty much "working well for everyone"
> 
> Have you tested Safestart or Biospira?


Bio-spira yes. Was more useful (refridgerated).
Plenty of peer reviewed articles out there that still claim phosphates,nitrates,cause algae. But yet plenty of folk's,myself included,,add these mineral salt's to planted tank's daily and don't have algae.
Do you really think a class room of elementary children are content with watching five or six tank's fishless cycle,fish food method,??
No ,they wished to try anything,(and we did) that would speed up the maturing process.
Plant's were hand's down the fastest way to safely add a few fish within reason.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Chronados said:


> They are trying to get you to buy more of their product. Guess what, so is every other company in the entire world. Shocker huh?
> 
> What exactly does this have to do with how well it works? That's right, it doesn't, so let's address that and not get into vendor review territory.


It has everything to do with. So what are the benefits to adding this stuff after every WC? Why should I believe anything they say if they are trying to pedal it this way. In a planted tank it's even more ridiculous, which again is the forum we are discussing the usefulness of the product in.


----------



## Chronados (Jan 28, 2013)

roadmaster said:


> Bio-spira yes. Was more useful (refridgerated).
> Plenty of peer reviewed articles out there that still claim phosphates,nitrates,cause algae. But yet plenty of folk's,myself included,,add these mineral salt's to planted tank's daily and don't have algae.
> Do you really think a class room of elementary children are content with watching five or six tank's fishless cycle,fish food method,??
> No ,they wished to try anything,(and we did) that would speed up the maturing process.
> Plant's were hand's down the fastest way to safely add a few fish within reason.


So you are agreeing that Biospira works at least? :red_mouth From what I understand and have seen, Safestart is simply a reworked version of Biospira that is not as effective, but does not need to be refrigerated. So while it may not cycle your tank overnight like Biospira used to, it definitely speeds things up quite a bit, in my experience (and there's a few other people in this thread with similar results). I would highly suggest it if you're setting a tank up in the future, especially with said impatient kids 

Sorry if my previous post was a little snarky. You make a fair point on journals having conflicting information regarding ferts and algae. I guess the only thing I can say to this is that every one of those articles I've seen has been some kind of natural ecosystem, which have different variables like lighting, surface area to volume ratio, plant density, bioload, etc that are hard to account for. The Biospira journal basically just identified that the stuff in Biospira was indeed the correct strain of nitrifying bacteria found in aquariums, which should be pretty sound. Assuming that's true, then well, it really just becomes a question of shelf life on the newer, non-refrigerated Safestart formula.


----------



## Chronados (Jan 28, 2013)

houseofcards said:


> It has everything to do with. So what are the benefits to adding this stuff after every WC? Why should I believe anything they say if they are trying to pedal it this way. In a planted tank it's even more ridiculous, which again is the forum we are discussing the usefulness of the product in.


It's a preventative measure. When you do a water changes, you oftentime vacuum the gravel. What happens? Debris gets kicked up, bacteria sucked out. When you clean the filter media, what happens? Bacteria is lost. When you dose medication, what happens? Bacteria can be killed. You probably don't NEED to do it, but there's nothing wrong with their advice.

Whether the tank is planted has NOTHING to do with this. The nitrifying process still goes on. And if you're only depending on your plants to suck up all the ammonia (assuming they are even capable of doing so), you're asking for a ton of trouble if your plants ever stop growing.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Chronados said:


> It's a preventative measure. When you do a water changes, you oftentime vacuum the gravel. What happens? Debris gets kicked up, bacteria sucked out. When you clean the filter media, what happens? Bacteria is lost. When you dose medication, what happens? Bacteria can be killed. You probably don't NEED to do it, but there's nothing wrong with their advice.
> 
> Whether the tank is planted has NOTHING to do with this. The nitrifying process still goes on. And if you're only depending on your plants to suck up all the ammonia (assuming they are even capable of doing so), you're asking for a ton of trouble if your plants ever stop growing.


I have to ask, do you have a planted tank? You seem to pretty much negate all the benefits of one. In a planted tank especially this would be a TOTAL waste of one's money. Between the plants, substrate and any other surfaces the bulk of the bio-filtration is in the tank, not in the filter. Most planted tank people don't gravel wash, and if they do it's usually a small piece of real estate. That's the beauty of a planted tank!


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

:icon_lol:


Chronados said:


> So you are agreeing that Biospira works at least? :red_mouth From what I understand and have seen, Safestart is simply a reworked version of Biospira that is not as effective, but does not need to be refrigerated. So while it may not cycle your tank overnight like Biospira used to, it definitely speeds things up quite a bit, in my experience (and there's a few other people in this thread with similar results). I would highly suggest it if you're setting a tank up in the future, especially with said impatient kids
> 
> Sorry if my previous post was a little snarky. You make a fair point on journals having conflicting information regarding ferts and algae. I guess the only thing I can say to this is that every one of those articles I've seen has been some kind of natural ecosystem, which have different variables like lighting, surface area to volume ratio, plant density, bioload, etc that are hard to account for. The Biospira journal basically just identified that the stuff in Biospira was indeed the correct strain of nitrifying bacteria found in aquariums, which should be pretty sound. Assuming that's true, then well, it really just becomes a question of shelf life on the newer, non-refrigerated Safestart formula.


No offense taken, I have thick skin.:icon_lol:
Have moved from the class room to administrative offices, so not much interaction with the kid's now day's:icon_neut
I would humbly suggest that you maybe look into "silent cycling" for more understanding how plant's can be of benefit during new tank set up.
Is so easy a child can do it.


----------



## AquaAurora (Jul 10, 2013)

Wow too many posts to quote respond to them all  



Braxx said:


> Sorry your thread had to get a bit out of hand OP. I hope your question has been answered.


I don't mind the mild hi-jacking, its still on-topic enough that I'm gaining knowledge which is what I wanted.


I originally started this thread because I'd bought an API product that says it has BB for the tank and should be used weekly with water changes. I was most curious if BB needed re-introduced for the weekly cleaning done via gravel vac, and what products would be best to do so, if needed. However the subjects about suing it to start tanks, help with oppies, etc was a good read too* so thank you all for participating*, you're more than welcome to keep posting opinions and reviews ^^


----------



## jpappy789 (Jul 28, 2013)

houseofcards said:


> I have to ask, do you have a planted tank? You seem to pretty much negate all the benefits of one. In a planted tank especially this would be a TOTAL waste of one's money. Between the plants, substrate and any other surfaces the bulk of the bio-filtration is in the tank, not in the filter. Most planted tank people don't gravel wash, and if they do it's usually a small piece of real estate. That's the beauty of a planted tank!


Yes, this is a planted forum but not everyone plants heavily or keeps quick growing plants that can easily take in the available N given their desired bioload. I don't think anyone is denying that plants play a big role in an aquarium's N cycle...but like I said earlier, seems rather dangerous to assume that just because you have some plants in your tank that you are fine and dandy and don't need to worry about the microbial component. And unless you've done a bacterial survey of your aquarium then there's very little to back up any statement regarding where they reside other than some theories. 

I have a new tank in the process of fishless cycling that is fairly well planted, lower light but some faster growing stems. The other day added 2 ppm NH3 which was completely processed to nitrite overnight. But the nitrite was still stuck at that step. Should anyone consider that "system" to be balanced well by the plants? Hopefully not. I wont deny that I've toyed with the idea of purchasing a bottled product because it's frustrating to watch the N cycle halted at that last step for longer than you expected. Some people will say just add fish and let the plants/current bacteria do the work. I say that if I'm going to spend over $100 on fish for this tank that it better damn well be cycled before I add anything. _That_ would be a waste of money should anything go wrong, and I'd rather deal with frustrating N levels than dead fish.

My point is that every tank is different. You might be able to stock with what you want and not see any excess N waste because the plants are doing their job. That's great, and many people can achieve that "balance" in their tanks. But discrediting an entire group of products based on a cheaper alternative (which, again, doesn't apply to every planted tank) is just silly in my opinion. There are very few absolutes in this hobby. Heck, one could argue that when you weigh the cumulative costs for getting enough plant bioload to handle whatever fish/invert bioload you are adding might not exactly be spending all that much more on a bottle of bacteria...but that may just be me playing devil's advocate. 

Bottom line: weigh the costs for your own tank based on what you want to achieve and in what time frame.


----------



## GimmeGills (Oct 6, 2010)

houseofcards said:


> I have to ask, do you have a planted tank? You seem to pretty much negate all the benefits of one. In a planted tank especially this would be a TOTAL waste of one's money. Between the plants, substrate and any other surfaces the bulk of the bio-filtration is in the tank, not in the filter. Most planted tank people don't gravel wash, and if they do it's usually a small piece of real estate. That's the beauty of a planted tank!


Just a little pointer - Check out Chronados's signature 41g cube. It's looking sharp and should have an update on fauna soon! HouseofCards - no need to be so dramatic. If you do the research you and Chronado have made correct statements that do not necessarily negate each other. I know it may be hard to accept but you can both be right in this circumstance! Thanks for the entertainment and bringing to light a hot topic ladies and/or gentlemen.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

GimmeGills said:


> Just a little pointer - Check out Chronados's signature 41g cube. It's looking sharp and should have an update on fauna soon! HouseofCards - no need to be so dramatic. If you do the research you and Chronado have made correct statements that do not necessarily negate each other. I know it may be hard to accept but you can both be right in this circumstance! Thanks for the entertainment and bringing to light a hot topic ladies and/or gentlemen.


LOL, I don't know what do make of your post, but I'm glad your were entertained. :red_mouth

I'm not sure what his tank has to do with it. He setup a tank and it's looking good according to you pre-fauna. What does that possibly have to do with this conversation? This is about making it safe for fish quickly and not wasting money on something you don't need in planted. I was asking about whether he had a planted tank since he seems to negate the advantages of such.


----------



## Chronados (Jan 28, 2013)

roadmaster said:


> :icon_lol:
> 
> No offense taken, I have thick skin.:icon_lol:
> Have moved from the class room to administrative offices, so not much interaction with the kid's now day's:icon_neut
> ...


I understand the concept of silent cycling, but I think there are certain limitations. For instance, it depends on the plants doing well. If they don't for whatever reason and start rotting, then you have an even bigger issue on your hands. Also, it needs to have a certain plant:fish biomass ratio, which not everyone wants/can do. It's also really only for the initial setup, whereas Safestart can be used in the event of a tank crash (power outtage, filter shut off over vacation, etc). I suppose you could throw in more plants, but I've found there's still an adjustment period for most plants before they get cranking. Like I've said, silent cycling and fishless cycling are all viable approaches. I'm not trying to shoot down any of them, just pointing out the pros and cons of each. In the case of Safestart (and other bacterial supplements that actually work), the pros are that it's generally faster than other methods, and it's more convenient. The con is obviously that you have to pay for it 



houseofcards said:


> Between the plants, substrate and any other surfaces the bulk of the bio-filtration is in the tank, not in the filter.


That's a big assumption. You're telling me there's no difference between a 20g with a few anubias species and a 20g high light running CO2 packed full of fast growing stem plants?

Similarly, you're telling me there's no difference in the ratio of bacteria in the filter vs tank in the same 10g, if I were to have an FX5 compared to a small Aquaclear HOB?



houseofcards said:


> Most planted tank people don't gravel wash, and if they do it's usually a small piece of real estate.


My gravel wash explanation was for ALL aquariums. You were asking why Tetra recommends it on water changes in their instructions, which has nothing to do with if a tank is planted or not. Safestart is made for ALL aquariums. A lot of people with non planted tanks vacuum their gravel during water changes. Thus Tetra suggests you use it during water changes to replenish bacteria you possibly sucked out. It's probably not needed as I said, but the logic is sound. I don't know how I can make this any clearer.



houseofcards said:


> I'm not sure what his tank has to do with it


Pretty sure he said I had a planted tank because you asked if I had one (I have several)

Let's outline to make this clearer:

1) Nitrifying bacteria plays a role in breaking down waste in a planted tank (do you finally admit to this yet?). More so in a low light, lightly planted tank than a heavily planted, high light, CO2 injected tank, but it's always there regardless.

2) Safestart and Biospira contain said nitrifying bacteria (correct species of bacteria, per peer-reviewed journal)

3) Safestart and Biospira can be added to tanks (planted or otherwise) to boost bacteria populations during:

- Tank startup - makes the process faster
- Emergencies - ammonia spikes due to whatever reason (power outtage, fish dying, plants dying, etc, etc)
- Certain scenarios - for instance, I ordered my fish through Msjinkzd. Because express shipping is expensive, I wanted to place a single order that would contain almost all the fish I needed. Knowing that my biological filter could probably not handle that, I use Safestart. It was $15 for a bottle. I saved $25 on another round of express shipping.

Any flaws with this logic? Please enlighten me.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

I just looked at your 41G Rimless Journal in your sig (as pointed out by GimmeGills)

I really like this quote form the last page:



Chronados said:


> …
> Either the new Aquasoil doesn't leech as much ammonia (as I've been reading) or the DSM took most of it out, but with no ammonia readings and a seeded filter, I ordered my fish from Msjinkzd. Pictures in a few days after the amanos and otos clean up the brown algae/fungus ...


Where's the Tetra Safe Start? Just to be sure of course!


----------



## Chronados (Jan 28, 2013)

houseofcards said:


> I just looked at your 41G Rimless Journal in your sig (as pointed out by GimmeGills)
> 
> I really like this quote form the last page:
> 
> Where's the Tetra Safe Start? Just to be sure of course!


Wow, you're really fishing for this one huh? I've addressed each of your points. Are you able to do the same?

Let me walk you through the process:

1) DSM for roughly a month
2) Tank flooded 8/26. Measurable ammonia (~1ppm if I recall) and nitrites, nothing super high (last bag of Aquasoil I used, I hit 8ppm ammonia). Probably due to the DSM as mentioned. Filter running with seeded media. Keep in mind it was from a 2213 to an FX5, so I wasn't expecting miracles
3) 5 days later, zero change in ammonia/nitrite/nitrates. Plants are doing fine, lighting is set to about 30 PAR with CO2 injection @ 20ppm. I add Tetra Safestart (I'm an impatient man  ) that weekend.
4) By early in the week (around 9/2) the ammonia and nitrites were zero, nitrates steady, presumably because plant intake kept up.
5) I order ALOT of fish. They arrive 9/4 (Want to see a screenshot of the shipping notice?). ~40 fish total, plus some shrimp
6) No ammonia/nitrites since then, though nitrates went up for a while.

Yes, it's not a perfect experiment by any means. The plants kicking in around 9/2 probably took care of most of the ammonia, but I attribute the drop in nitrite to TSS working, as plants do not absorb nitrite for the most part.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Putting our varying points of view aside. That looks like a nice setup!

Too be honest TSS, Plants, whatever I've never understood a reason why you need to dump a bunch of fish in at once. I understand you mentioned shipping and supporting the vendors here (I've purchased form Msjinkzd as well), but surely you could have purchased a few fish locally and then added the rest at a later day. So there are fish in the tank now?


----------



## Chronados (Jan 28, 2013)

houseofcards said:


> Putting our varying points of view aside. That looks like a nice setup!
> 
> Too be honest TSS, Plants, whatever I've never understood a reason why you need to dump a bunch of fish in at once. I understand you mentioned shipping and supporting the vendors here (I've purchased form Msjinkzd as well), but surely you could have purchased a few fish locally and then added the rest at a later day. So there are fish in the tank now?


Thanks!

I have not had any luck with my LFS. Every fish I've ever purchased locally (I've tried 3 different stores) in the past 2 years I've had issues with. The conditions of the tanks seem ok, but I don't think they have very good suppliers in general.

Yes, all the fish are in. Hard to believe there's actually 40+ fish in here.



















In recent days the Espei's have decided to start being more social and school.


----------



## gus6464 (Dec 19, 2011)

I used Nite-Out II to cycle a brand new tank with 2 brand new canisters. Didn't have any media to seed. My tank was fully cycled 3 weeks later and have not seen anything higher than 0 ever since (this includes nitrates).


----------



## Warlock (Feb 28, 2012)

I use PURE AQUARIUM..


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Getting back to the use of TSS. If I use your tank as an example, which BTW is a lowlight setup, there isn't any real evidence that the TSS used made any difference. In fact, I'm still not sure if your so passionate about it, why it wasn't mentioned in your thread when you couldn't detect any ammonia. Your statement again was:



Chronados said:


> ...Either the new Aquasoil doesn't leech as much ammonia (as I've been reading) or the DSM took most of it out, but with no ammonia readings and a seeded filter, I ordered my fish from Msjinkzd. Pictures in a few days after the amanos and otos clean up the brown algae/fungu...


In fact you stated pretty much what I said all along with planted tanks. That the plants removed it and you used a seeded filter. Would you agree that there's no evidence that the TSS made any difference?


----------



## Chronados (Jan 28, 2013)

Oh cmon, seriously?



houseofcards said:


> In fact, I'm still not sure if your so passionate about it, why it wasn't mentioned in your thread when you couldn't detect any ammonia


Did you read what I wrote? Let me walk you through the process again. I'll even highlight the important parts:

1) DSM for roughly a month
2) Tank flooded 8/26. *Measurable ammonia (~1ppm if I recall) and nitrites, nothing super high *(last bag of Aquasoil I used, I hit 8ppm ammonia). Probably due to the DSM as mentioned. Filter running with seeded media. Keep in mind it was from a 2213 to an FX5, so I wasn't expecting miracles
3) *5 days later, zero change in ammonia/nitrite/nitrates*. Plants are doing fine, lighting is set to about 30 PAR with CO2 injection @ 20ppm. *I add Tetra Safestart (I'm an impatient man ) that weekend*.
4) *By early in the week (around 9/2) the ammonia and nitrites were zero, nitrates steady*, presumably because plant intake kept up.

It was at this point I said I had no measurable ammonia, so I ordered fish. I said the Aquasoil didn't leech much ammonia, NOT that it didn't leech any. Clear now?

Yes, I can't prove whether bacteria or plants ate the ammonia. Maybe the plants all the sudden kicked in early that week. But plants don't consume nitrites for the most part. So where did they go? How did they disappear all the sudden right after I added TSS when they hadn't changed in almost a week? Like I've said a few times now, it's by no means a controlled experiment. But that would be one hell of a coincidence if TSS didn't have something to do with my cycle and my shrimp tank seeded media cycled my tank in 2 days.



houseofcards said:


> you used a seeded filter


Sigh, I even specifically called this out in my previous post. I used some filter squeezings from an Eheim 2213. From a SHRIMP tank. I put them in an FX5. On a tank 5 times the size. With measurable ammonia/nitrite levels. The difference in scale is huge. I didn't expect the seeding to do much, and it didn't, as shown by 5 days of no change in readings. 

Let me post this again. This is actually an incredibly simple argument. You are complicating the matter. *If you're going to continue to argue, I expect you to address/disprove these points.*. If you can't, you don't have an argument. You keep dodging what I'm writing and moving on to something else.



Chronados said:


> 1) Nitrifying bacteria plays a role in breaking down waste in a planted tank (do you finally admit to this yet?). More so in a low light, lightly planted tank than a heavily planted, high light, CO2 injected tank, but it's always there regardless.
> 
> 2) Safestart and Biospira contain said nitrifying bacteria (correct species of bacteria, per peer-reviewed journal)
> 
> 3) Safestart and Biospira can be added to tanks (planted or otherwise) to boost bacteria populations


Are you saying Safestart doesn't contain nitrifying bacteria? Or are you saying it doesn't work in planted tanks? Or are you saying planted tanks don't need nitrifying bacteria. Because you've rotated through a couple of different arguments.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Chronados said:


> Oh cmon, seriously?
> 
> Did you read what I wrote? Let me walk you through the process again. I'll even highlight the important parts:
> 
> ...


I'm getting too old for this :red_mouth

I'm not dodging anything. Maybe we're referring two different things. In your tank thread Post #38 on 9/5, you didn't write anything about using TSS when you had no measurable ammonia.

I'm not talking about what you wrote since we started this discussion. It just seemed odd to me that you didn't mention it anywhere in your thread, but your so passionate about it here. 



Chronados said:


> Are you saying Safestart doesn't contain nitrifying bacteria? Or are you saying it doesn't work in planted tanks? Or are you saying planted tanks don't need nitrifying bacteria. Because you've rotated through a couple of different arguments..


Again I never said TSS doesn't contain nitrifying bacteria. What I'm saying is it's not doing anything that the tank isn't already doing. There is a silent cycle going on that will get you there anyway. With most planted tanks, even if not heavily planted, water changes, plants, other surfaces, will make the tank safe for some fish even before the 'cycle' is completed. The bacteria present is going to replicate pretty quickly, I'm still not getting why you would need TSS to accomplish this. In your own words you can't prove one way or another whether the TSS was needed.


----------



## Chronados (Jan 28, 2013)

houseofcards said:


> I'm getting too old for this :red_mouth
> 
> I'm not dodging anything. Maybe we're referring two different things. In your tank thread Post #38 on 9/5, you didn't write anything about using TSS when you had no measurable ammonia.


There's a lot of things I didn't mention in my journal. I glossed over plenty of stuff on the mechanical aspects of my build, and I didn't think anyone really cared about the whole cycling thing, just like they wouldn't care about what size screws I used or what PVC fittings I used. People just want to see green stuff and the words "ADA" in tank journals.



houseofcards said:


> I'm not talking about what you wrote since we started this discussion. It just seemed odd to me that you didn't mention it anywhere in your thread, but your so passionate about it here.


I'm talking about it here because well...this is a thread about bacterial supplements? I'm passionate because I think the line of thinking that bacterial supplements are snake oil and such should be changed. I'm passionate because I think they have their uses. Whether it be for financial and impatience reasons (in my case) or real emergencies where a tank crashes. The more the whole snake oil thing is perpetuated, the slower this hobby is to evolve. Yes, there are snake oil products out there. I've used some. I do not believe Nitrospira or Safestart is one of them.



houseofcards said:


> Again I never said TSS doesn't contain nitrifying bacteria. What I'm saying is it's not doing anything that the tank isn't already doing. There is a silent cycle going on that will get you there anyway. With most planted tanks, even if not heavily planted, water changes, plants, other surfaces, will make the tank safe for some fish even before the 'cycle' is completed. The bacteria present is going to replicate pretty quickly, I'm still not getting why you would need TSS to accomplish this. In your own words you can't prove one way or another whether the TSS was needed.


Ok, good, we finally get down to it. Let's talk about this exclusively from now instead of going off on tangents. First, you're making these assumptions:

1) The plants are doing well and absorbing ammonia
2) You have enough plants to absorb the ammonia from the fish

I hope you can see why these are bad assumptions. By your logic, there would never be ammonia spikes in a planted tank ever, but life happens. Plants do start dying all the sudden. Some fish die. Your power goes out while you're on vacation. These are all legitimate reasons for wanting to add Safestart. Legit reasons aside, people may also want to use it because they don't want to wait 3-4 weeks for a fishless cycle, or the limitations of silent cycling (adding fish slowly). Time is money.

You're right. I can't prove one way or another whether TSS was needed. My conclusion would be thrown in the trash by any researcher. Why does it matter? I've said a million times I'm only providing anecdotal evidence. However, my argument that Safestart is quicker and useful is in no way dependent on my own experiences.

1) It contains nitrifying bacteria (which you agree with). You can't deny this is faster than waiting for it to grow because you're literally dumping it in the tank.
2) Planted tanks still need nitrifying bacteria
3) Sometimes you need/want extra nitrifying bacteria to deal with ammonia/nitrites/additional bioload(new tank, tank crash, etc)
4) Sometimes you'll want to add Safestart.

Simple logic.

To sum it up. Safestart is a *FASTER* and more *VERSATILE* way of adding bacteria. But it costs money. So decide for yourself if it's worth it.

Last post on the subject. Going to go bang my head against a brick wall now


----------



## bud29 (Sep 30, 2012)

Aw, shucks - I'm late to the party :red_mouth

At least my experience with it - I did not use tetra safe start in particular, but I have had good results with a "BB in a bottle" type product.

I started my 29g fishless cycle with pure ammonia. No plants. No seeded media. Nothing. After *3 months*, the ammonia had not budged. I tried just about everything, water changes, drains, refills, re-dosing, to see if I had done something wrong. Nothing at all. I had avoided buying the BB in a bottle, since there was such a wide range of opinions and I didn't really want to spend the money. 3 months was definitely a tipping point, though.

I got the Drs. Foster & Smith house brand of BB in a bottle. I added it to the tank, in 48 hours the ammonia was 0. Very soon afterwards I was able to add fish. A case has been made that the cycles you supposedly get from such products are just natural - but that is one HECK of a coincidence if that's the case here.


----------



## tetra73 (Aug 2, 2011)

houseofcards said:


> I'm getting too old for this :red_mouth
> 
> I'm not dodging anything. Maybe we're referring two different things. In your tank thread Post #38 on 9/5, you didn't write anything about using TSS when you had no measurable ammonia.
> 
> ...



I think he is one of those people who like to argue over the internet. I would probably just leave him alone and to work on my tank....the real issue.


----------



## Chronados (Jan 28, 2013)

tetra73 said:


> I think he is one of those people who like to argue over the internet. I would probably just leave him alone and to work on my tank....the real issue.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Did you really come to a seperate thread to attack me? I'm flattered. When you can't win an argument, attack the arguer! Weee


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Well maybe tetra73 has a point. When I mentioned that newbies are the ones these products prey on and I said I’ll let people decide by the info in the thread effectively trying to end my participation you got very defensive as if I was only talking to you. 



houseofcards said:


> Well newbies are the ones that these products prey on, you don't need a heavily planted tank, moderately planted with WC. The best product in the world that will solve most problems is the water change. We are on TPT.
> 
> I'll Let people decide by the info in the thread if its worth it.





Chronados said:


> Are you saying I'm a newbie? I'm no expert, and I can't offer you your peer-reviewed research (then again, neither have you), only anecdotal stuff from personal experience, but I can assure you I was not "tricked" into using the product.





Chronados said:


> Ok, good, we finally get down to it. Let's talk about this exclusively from now instead of going off on tangents. First, you're making these assumptions:
> 
> 1) The plants are doing well and absorbing ammonia
> 2) You have enough plants to absorb the ammonia from the fish
> ...


You left off:

3) Water changes, pretty much standard stuff in most planted tanks. Technically the tank doesn’t have to be cycled if you do these, the tank is cycling with the fish in the tank. 
4) Seeding – which you yourself did in your own setup
5) Carbon/other organic absorbers, which comes with most new filters and should always be used at startup to absorb organics before they breakdown and cause fish and algae issues.

BTW this is the Ops first post. . 



AquaAurora said:


> So when you do a water change or are setting up a tank, you typically buy a bottle of some brand product to get beneficial bacteria into the tank that will eventually settle in and get ammonia and nitrite under control... *what product do you use*?
> I have used a large bottle of an API one and its almost empty so I'm thinking of trying something else and would like to hear what other users have bought and liked.


He’s not asking about some emergency or odd situation he’s asking about what one does *typically and during water changes*, thus the genesis of the responses. 



AquaAurora said:


> You're right. I can't prove one way or another whether TSS was needed. My conclusion would be thrown in the trash by any researcher. Why does it matter? I've said a million times I'm only providing anecdotal evidence. .


So why the heck are you so adamant that you need it?


----------



## Chronados (Jan 28, 2013)

houseofcards said:


> Well maybe tetra73 has a point. When I mentioned that newbies are the ones these products prey on and I said I’ll let people decide by the info in the thread effectively trying to end my participation you got very defensive as if I was only talking to you.


Well yes, you said newbies are the ones these products prey on. I used Safestart. Thus of course I am going to defend myself, because unless I'm mistaken, your statement is referring to people using these products, myself and a few people in this thread included. You then later went on to *insinuate I was lying about adding Safestart*. Why would I not be defensive?



houseofcards said:


> You left off:
> 
> 3) Water changes, pretty much standard stuff in most planted tanks. Technically the tank doesn’t have to be cycled if you do these, the tank is cycling with the fish in the tank.
> 4) Seeding – which you yourself did in your own setup
> 5) Carbon/other organic absorbers, which comes with most new filters and should always be used at startup to absorb organics before they breakdown and cause fish and algae issues.


Aren't you proving my point? You said fishless cycling/silent cycling is related to this stuff. You are making assumptions that people will be doing this/have this. I didn't include water changes, seeding, or carbon because that's typically easier to do and more controllable/commonplace. I'm saying you can do without them if you want if you use Safestart. I made a list of assumptions you made. You added to them here.



houseofcards said:


> He’s not asking about some emergency or odd situation he’s asking about what one does *typically and during water changes*, thus the genesis of the responses.


We got off the topic of OP's question a long time ago. And I answered it a few times already.



houseofcards said:


> So why the heck are you so adamant that you need it?


For the umpteenth time, I never said you need it. I've only said it works, it's useful, and it's versatile. It's a TOOL. I never said you need it. This time, you're putting words in my mouth.

*You initially said these products have pointless. I said they have their uses (I hope I don't have to list the reasons why again). That's literally all this 5 page argument boils down to.*


----------



## Xirxes (Aug 18, 2008)

As a preface: I am commenting here based on first page responses, and based on last page posts, the train has detailed. 

My company private labels a very concentrated mixture of beneficial bacterias in both dry and liquid forms. They are most certainly not snake oils, but many people claim that BB has effects/uses that they simply don't. I have personally seen to the introduction and heard direct positive results in over 300 different aquariums, garden ponds and Koi ponds.

Planted aquariums, with our higher than average attention to detail and husbandry have very little place for BB, but a few are noteworthy.

1) initial startup (especially with medium to high fish load within first month). The bacteria does help sees the system, and handle higher than average waste levels during cycles, but BB DOES NOT replace the need for a proper cycle.

2) lace of substrate in setup
There is a reason even Amano uses bacteria. He's done the research, seen the science and the results

3) after a deep filter clean
When we remove large amounts of organic waste, we also remove BB. A dose at this point pays dividends to boost the system, ESPECIALLY when biomedia is mishandled/sterilized/aired out too long.

The greatest benefit to BB comes with systems trying to keep a heavier than average bioload without proper planting/ferts/co2 (Heavy fish, low tech low budget systems)

It is also good to remember that BB has a cumulative positive effect, and is never meant as a one time shotgun treatment.


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

Everyone is free to believe what they wish to believe with regard's to bacterial supplement's and I am pleased everyone can agree that they are not needed, according to post's in this thread.
I have at one time or another, tried about everything that's came down the pike with varying degree's of success/failure.
Have managed over close to forty year's to keep all manner of fishes ,some delicate species included, with nothing but tapwater,dechlorinator, Patience.
I choose to save my money for fishes, food,plant's.
Other's are free to lighten their wallet's on that which the believe work's and I say go for it! Buy the stuff,,use it frequently as suggested.new tank set up's, after water changes,vaccuming,new fish addition's etc,etc. 
Then try using patience,,plant the tank you are starting with fast growing species,research what need's the plant's have to thrive, let the tank run with plant's for a couple week's while you research fishes that interest you, and then begin stocking with a few fishes,don't over feed ,over stock.
Just don't throw money to the magic potion maker's based solely on opinion's ,mine,,,or other's.
Try using it,,and then form your own independent conclusion.
As for me,, My path is clear.Good thing's rarely happen quickly in the aquarium, and the less crap in my tank's,,the easier it is to keep input to a minimum.
If It is not needed to achieve similar,same result's,,, then ....


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

AquaAurora said:


> So when you do a water change or are setting up a tank, you *typically* buy a bottle of some brand product to get beneficial bacteria into the tank that will eventually settle in and get ammonia and nitrite under control... what product do you use?
> I have used a large bottle of an API one and its almost empty so I'm thinking of trying something else and would like to hear what other users have bought and liked.


Again, if you go back to the very first post from the OP he asks what one typically does and to answer the question YOU DON’T NEED A PRODUCT IN A BOTTLE. That’s what a planted tank is for. There’s always exceptions that one could say this product is good for. 

If your cooking your biofilter or adding too many fish from the getgo than I think you’ll be better served learning about good husbandry than relying on a bottle of magic. This will get you much further in the long run since you’ll not only have healthy fish, but prevent algae issues. 

That seems to be where the logic for using this product is, when a newbie makes these kinds of mistakes. Most people buying this stuff in LFS/Chains are typical newbies who don’t practice good husbandry and get the impression it’s some miracle product. In fact many of them walk out of the store with this product in one hand and 10 fish in the other.


----------



## Chronados (Jan 28, 2013)

houseofcards said:


> Again, if you go back to the very first post from the OP he asks what one typically does and to answer the question YOU DON’T NEED A PRODUCT IN A BOTTLE. That’s what a planted tank is for. There’s always exceptions that one could say this product is good for.
> 
> If your cooking your biofilter or adding too many fish from the getgo than I think you’ll be better served learning about good husbandry than relying on a bottle of magic. This will get you much further in the long run since you’ll not only have healthy fish, but prevent algae issues.
> 
> That seems to be where the logic for using this product is, when a newbie makes these kinds of mistakes. Most people buying this stuff in LFS/Chains are typical newbies who don’t practice good husbandry and get the impression it’s some miracle product. In fact many of them walk out of the store with this product in one hand and 10 fish in the other.


Only newbies have issues with ammonia/nitrites/biofilter in planted tanks? You honestly believe that? I can think of quite a few scenarios where even an experienced fishkeeper can get ammonia spikes or experience a tank crash. I agree that it's not needed in most cases (not sure why you keep bringing this up when I've agreed on it like 14 times), but if you don't think that Safestart can be *useful* in real world situations where stuff doesn't always go according to plan, then that's just being naive. It's a *tool*. Is a Python needed? No. It's a tool. Is Aquasoil needed? No. It's a tool. Is pressurized CO2 needed? No. It's a tool. If the product didn't work, then that would be a different story, but you've already admitted that Safestart is nitrifying bacteria.

Your argument is the exact same as someone saying cold medicine is not needed for the common cold. If you just maintain your health and immune system, you won't get sick. Only newbies that make mistakes and don't maintain their health or eat right, etc, get sick. And if you do get sick, just let it get better naturally instead of putting chemicals in a bottle into your system. See the similarity? Yes, it's probably not needed. No, I'm sure as heck not going to suffer for a few days when a bottle of Nyquil costs $5.

Let me sum it up. Are you saying that the ability to add nitrifying bacteria at will to your aquarium is not useful in any way?


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Chronados said:


> T..
> Last post on the subject. Going to go bang my head against a brick wall now


Ok I thought you were done here! :icon_cool

Since you like analogies I'll give you a few:

'Injecting your tank with BB in a bottle is like getting a blood transfusion when you don’t need one.'

'It’s like taking vitamin C, when you’re already drinking OJ everyday.' 

You already admitted that planted tanks don’t typically need this stuff, which is what the OP asked in the first place. If the thread was called “Help, emergency I killed all my BB”, then O.K. maybe there’s some wiggle room that this stuff could be useful, but is hardly the only way to go. There’s always exceptions, remember, people keep goldfish in bowls and the water is never cycled.


----------



## zodduska (Aug 14, 2013)

FWIW I was having issues trying to Fish in cycle my 12 gallon with Aquasoil, the first part of the cycle has been complete for a week and I've been dealing with very high Nitrite levels (I think >10ppm) doing daily large water changes wasn't enough to bring it down below the maximum my test kit indicates. Three days ago I added half a bottle of SafeStart to my canister filter and six hours later it reduced my Nitrite to 0.









(left = after water change, center = an hour or so after adding TSS, right = after 6 hours)

The next morning Nitrites were maxing out the test kit again and have been since, I've been squirting a few ml of safe start into the filter inlet every day after the water change to hopefully speed things up.. but it's not magic as I thought initially.


----------



## Chronados (Jan 28, 2013)

houseofcards said:


> Ok I thought you were done here! :icon_cool


I lied I suppose . I am always open to discussion, as long as we keep it civil. I admit I could have worded things differently at times, and I apologize.



houseofcards said:


> Since you like analogies I'll give you a few:
> 
> 'Injecting your tank with BB in a bottle is like getting a blood transfusion when you don’t need one.'


I think this is an improper analogy. Yes, I agree that you don't need to add BB when you don't need it. But what if you do? That's what I'm talking about. Are you claiming you NEVER need blood transfusions?

With regards to the analogy, you don't need blood transfusions all the time, but it doesn't mean it doesn't have its uses, like when you're low on blood after a car crash. Likewise, you don't need BB all the time. But it still comes in handy in certain situations, like when you're low on BB after say, a tank crash. That is the real analogy.

Sure, you could wait for your body to make up the lost blood (maybe), but does that make blood transfusions any less useful? It's technically a quick-fix, but it's obviously a useful tool.



houseofcards said:


> You already admitted that planted tanks don’t typically need this stuff, which is what the OP asked in the first place. If the thread was called “Help, emergency I killed all my BB”, then O.K. maybe there’s some wiggle room that this stuff could be useful, but is hardly the only way to go. There’s always exceptions, remember, people keep goldfish in bowls and the water is never cycled.


Except, you said BB additives were not needed in planted tanks in general. That's a general statement, not just specifically referring to his tank. If you had said BB additives are not needed with water changes in HIS planted tank, I would have agreed (and I did, you can check one of my earlier posts)

Again, I'm not saying you NEED this stuff. I'm saying it can be useful as a tool. You don't NEED water changes either. You can balance a tank to require almost no water changes. But it's still nice to have as a tool. And by your last few sentences, I think we're now finally starting to agree on this.


----------



## ua hua (Oct 30, 2009)

zodduska said:


> FWIW I was having issues trying to Fish in cycle my 12 gallon with Aquasoil, the first part of the cycle has been complete for a week and I've been dealing with very high Nitrite levels (I think >10ppm) doing daily large water changes wasn't enough to bring it down below the maximum my test kit indicates. Three days ago I added half a bottle of SafeStart to my canister filter and six hours later it reduced my Nitrite to 0.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I would go get your money back, after all it guaranteed. This is typically what happens during a cycle your nitrites will bottom out then jump back up. There is a reason it's called a cycle. Patience is the name of the game in this hobby and if you don't have it your bound to have failures. Short cuts will result in headaches in the future. I have been involved in this hobby long enough to have learned this a long time ago.


----------



## Chronados (Jan 28, 2013)

zodduska said:


> FWIW I was having issues trying to Fish in cycle my 12 gallon with Aquasoil, the first part of the cycle has been complete for a week and I've been dealing with very high Nitrite levels (I think >10ppm) doing daily large water changes wasn't enough to bring it down below the maximum my test kit indicates. Three days ago I added half a bottle of SafeStart to my canister filter and six hours later it reduced my Nitrite to 0.
> 
> The next morning Nitrites were maxing out the test kit again and have been since, I've been squirting a few ml of safe start into the filter inlet every day after the water change to hopefully speed things up.. but it's not magic as I thought initially.


What are your ammonia levels during this? How about pH? And did you add in any ammonia locking chemicals prior to or after adding the Safestart?

Having done a lot of searching for this particular product, I have found Tetra is actually missing a lot in their instructions. If you throw it into an environment where nitrifying bacteria has a hard time growing in in the first place, then of course you can expect sub par results, because well...that's exactly what it is, nitrifying bacteria. For instance, ammonia over 5ppm, or pH under 6.5. By the way, the ammonia locking part was from a response from Tetra. I was under the impression that stuff like Prime still made the ammonia available to bacteria, so I'm uncertain about that particular point myself. I'm not saying this is necessarily the issue you experienced, just pointing out my findings.

As uahua said, it does come with a money back guarantee, so if you believe it didn't work, you can always get a refund. It's quite possible that the bacteria in the bottle died, either due to expiration or heat or cold. But I don't think there has been any evidence refuting the fact that it does have the correct strains of nitrifying bacteria, so rest assured you weren't tricked into buying some fake potion.


----------



## zodduska (Aug 14, 2013)

ua hua said:


> I would go get your money back, after all it guaranteed. This is typically what happens during a cycle your nitrites will bottom out then jump back up. There is a reason it's called a cycle. Patience is the name of the game in this hobby and if you don't have it your bound to have failures. Short cuts will result in headaches in the future. I have been involved in this hobby long enough to have learned this a long time ago.


I've also been involved in the hobby a long time and I understand the cycle, I was just posting this to show that it had some effect although it was not sustained.. the 0 nitrite was a direct result of adding the TSS, albeit temporarily. I normally wouldn't have any trouble cycling a planted tank with fish in without the use of any additives but was unaware of Aquasoil's ammonia leaching characteristics beforehand.



Chronados said:


> What are your ammonia levels during this? How about pH? And did you add in any ammonia locking chemicals prior to or after adding the Safestart?
> 
> Having done a lot of searching for this particular product, I have found Tetra is actually missing a lot in their instructions. If you throw it into an environment where nitrifying bacteria has a hard time growing in in the first place, then of course you can expect sub par results, because well...that's exactly what it is, nitrifying bacteria. For instance, ammonia over 5ppm, or pH under 6.5. By the way, the ammonia locking part was from a response from Tetra. I was under the impression that stuff like Prime still made the ammonia available to bacteria, so I'm uncertain about that particular point myself. I'm not saying this is necessarily the issue you experienced, just pointing out my findings.
> 
> As uahua said, it does come with a money back guarantee, so if you believe it didn't work, you can always get a refund. It's quite possible that the bacteria in the bottle died, either due to expiration or heat or cold. But I don't think there has been any evidence refuting the fact that it does have the correct strains of nitrifying bacteria, so rest assured you weren't tricked into buying some fake potion.


The ammonia is being processed to nitrite completely as it's being released by the aquasoil, so those levels are undetectable with my test kit. PH out of the tap is near 8, KH 16, in tank it fluctuates due to water changes, co2 and Aquasoil's softening effects. I'm using Prime for water changes and wait about an hour before adding TSS.

I'm not really worried about the money back guarantee, It's already proven to me that it does something.. whether or not really high nitrite levels is bad for establishing bacteria is unknown to me.


----------



## Chronados (Jan 28, 2013)

zodduska said:


> The ammonia is being processed to nitrite completely as it's being released by the aquasoil, so those levels are undetectable with my test kit. PH out of the tap is near 8, KH 16, in tank it fluctuates due to water changes, co2 and Aquasoil's softening effects. I'm using Prime for water changes and wait about an hour before adding TSS.
> 
> I'm not really worried about the money back guarantee, It's already proven to me that it does something.. whether or not really high nitrite levels is bad for establishing bacteria is unknown to me.


So it's not the ammonia levels or pH, then. According to Tetra, you want to wait 24 hours after adding ammonia locking chemicals before adding TSS, and 7 days after adding TSS to add any more ammonia locking chemicals. Again, I was under the impression that ammonia locked up in Prime was still available to BB, but who knows. FWIW, when I used it in my tank, I did not change or add any water before or after for several days. High nitrite levels levels as you said, may have been the issue, similar to how super high ammonia levels is. Possibly do a few water changes to bring the nitrites down first before adding the rest of the bottle? If it fails again you can just get your money back


----------



## zodduska (Aug 14, 2013)

Chronados said:


> So it's not the ammonia levels or pH, then. According to Tetra, you want to wait 24 hours after adding ammonia locking chemicals before adding TSS, and 7 days after adding TSS to add any more ammonia locking chemicals. Again, I was under the impression that ammonia locked up in Prime was still available to BB, but who knows. FWIW, when I used it in my tank, I did not change or add any water before or after for several days. High nitrite levels levels as you said, may have been the issue, similar to how super high ammonia levels is. Possibly do a few water changes to bring the nitrites down first before adding the rest of the bottle? If it fails again you can just get your money back


Thanks for the info. Ideally I didn't want to have to change the water for a while after adding the initial half bottle, I was really happy to get the 0 reading later that night but with Nitrite accumulating at critically high levels I have to minimize risk to the fish by continuing with large daily water changes, even though I'm sure it has a negative impact on the effectiveness of the TSS. I do like the idea of doing several large water changes in one day to eliminate most of the Nitrite and adding the rest of the bottle, I might try that this weekend if the cycle hasn't completed by then.


----------



## ua hua (Oct 30, 2009)

zodduska said:


> Thanks for the info. Ideally I didn't want to have to change the water for a while after adding the initial half bottle, I was really happy to get the 0 reading later that night but with Nitrite accumulating at critically high levels I have to minimize risk to the fish by continuing with large daily water changes, even though I'm sure it has a negative impact on the effectiveness of the TSS. I do like the idea of doing several large water changes in one day to eliminate most of the Nitrite and adding the rest of the bottle, I might try that this weekend if the cycle hasn't completed by then.


You won't get rid of the nitrite by doing water changes however you will reduce it. The nitrite needs to be there to convert into nitrates the same way the NH3 is converted into NO2-. It's part of the cycle. Nitrite poisoning can be just as serious as ammonia poisoning as it inhibits the uptake of oxygen by the red blood cells. I have always been a firm believer in letting the cycle do its thing rather than trying to speed it up.


----------



## zodduska (Aug 14, 2013)

ua hua said:


> You won't get rid of the nitrite by doing water changes however you will reduce it. The nitrite needs to be there to convert into nitrates the same way the NH3 is converted into NO3. It's part of the cycle. Nitrite poisoning can be just as serious as ammonia poisoning as it inhibits the uptake of oxygen by the red blood cells. I have always been a firm believer in letting the cycle do its thing rather than trying to speed it up.


Yes, I agree. I'm only trying to remove it and not let it build up to lethal levels as a temporary measure until the bacteria is able to convert the nitrite to nitrate. If I didn't change the water often all of the fish would surely be dead.


----------



## Jeff5614 (Dec 29, 2005)

Since I have no opinion, or at least nothing on which to base one, I thought I would offer this link.

http://www.barrreport.com/showthread.php/12881-Do-you-recommend-to-use-bacteria-suplements-regularly


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Jeff5614 said:


> Since I have no opinion, or at least nothing on which to base one, I thought I would offer this link.
> 
> http://www.barrreport.com/showthread.php/12881-Do-you-recommend-to-use-bacteria-suplements-regularly


:smile:


----------



## Chronados (Jan 28, 2013)

Jeff5614 said:


> Since I have no opinion, or at least nothing on which to base one, I thought I would offer this link.
> 
> http://www.barrreport.com/showthread.php/12881-Do-you-recommend-to-use-bacteria-suplements-regularly


I fully agree. Using it regularly for no reason is like adding blood transfusion for no reason as previously mentioned. I even told OP that no, he's not going to need it for every water change. I was never arguing that point with HoC. I was just saying, very simply, that Safestart does work in the proper conditions, and that there are in fact uses for it. Yet for some reason, people keep arguing with me about whether or not you absolutely need it when I've been agreeing all along that you don't.


----------



## Jeff5614 (Dec 29, 2005)

Chronados said:


> I fully agree. Using it regularly for no reason is like adding blood transfusion for no reason as previously mentioned. I even told OP that no, he's not going to need it for every water change. I was never arguing that point with HoC. I was just saying, very simply, that Safestart does work in the proper conditions, and that there are in fact uses for it. Yet for some reason, people keep arguing with me about whether or not you absolutely need it when I've been agreeing all along that you don't.


Well, I'm not so sure I disagree with using some sort of culture starter when first setting up a tank to move along cycling and establishing the biofilter. There seems to be both anecdotal and more documented evidence to support it. I can't see adding it to an established tank though, barring some major upheaval in the tank that might have a major affect on the bacterial filter. 

As to the link I posted, just citing the opinion of a trusted authority on planted tanks. It has been a good and spirited discussion with valid points made by all.


----------



## Chronados (Jan 28, 2013)

Jeff5614 said:


> Well, I'm not so sure I disagree with using some sort of culture starter when first setting up a tank to move along cycling and establishing the biofilter. There seems to be both anecdotal and more documented evidence to support it. I can't see adding it to an established tank though, barring some major upheaval in the tank that might have a major affect on the bacterial filter.
> 
> As to the link I posted, just citing the opinion of a trusted authority on planted tanks. It has been a good and spirited discussion with valid points made by all.


You misunderstood me, I am saying the same thing you are. It's not needed at all times, but there are uses for it. Such as setting up a tank, if you are impatient (like me). I was not arguing against you


----------



## Brian_Cali77 (Mar 19, 2010)

Someone should get plantbrain in here... with his doctorates and having a scientific background, I'm sure he can appreciate the validity of "peer-reviewed research" and the scientific method. It's hard to refute and discredit the effectiveness of the findings based on unsupported conjecture. Can we at least concede that TSS is not "snake oil" and there is a use for it other than making your wallet lighter? Sure it's not for everyone, especially within the context of a planted tank -- whether it matters if it's lightly vs. heavily planted I'm uncertain. But even within the context of a planted tank, in an unestablished tank or in a pinch one can reap the benefits of nitrifying bacteria 'on demand.' I think the notion of "time is money" and just having another "tool" in the proverbial shed is appealing and just adds to the repertoire of things available to us as hobbyists -- newbie or seasoned.


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

I really do not specialize in nitrifying bacteria, but.....they do use a lot of O2 to oxidize the NH4, but..............

Come on, put on the thinking caps here, stop with the blind adherence to marketing "scams" as Mark Twain would often say.

What do plants "do"?

NH4 uptake, and NO3 uptake, NO2? Not much at all, which is why we often see NO2 in cycling with ammonia etc.

ADA, myself and many others tell folks to do a lot of water changes for the 1st 1-2 months, as in 2-3 a week, 50-90% etc. This will also prevent algae, independent of the cycling issues.

Back to plants: plants come with a lot of bacteria already on them. So they are like adding the bacteria in the bottle, except even better.

We are trying to grow plants, so focus there, bacteria? They will even out just fine and with lots of good water changes, none of this monkey business or added cost for snake oils in the bottle are required. 

Most folks have a friend or another tank they can use the filter sponges etc, to cycle a new tank, and this is for folks who do not even have or keep plants. 

Planted tanks have long been known to have a "Silent cycle" and yet every 2-8 weeks, we have some long thread about fishless cycling, algae and green water or some cycling product. 

I'd say Dr. Tim Hoevac who use to work for Marineland knows the most about nitrifying bacteria and aquariums, but, he also sells the stuff too. It's a it like asking Amano if you should use ADA products. You know the answer before they respond. Same with folks gullible enough to believe a label on a bottle of snake oil, you know they believe it on faith, not evidence. After you have lost your innocence a few times, maybe more, you hopefully wise up and try and help others not make similar mistakes in logic and judgement. But, every few weeks, a new cohort comes along.


----------



## ua hua (Oct 30, 2009)

Brian_Cali77 said:


> Someone should get plantbrain in here... with his doctorates and having a scientific background, I'm sure he can appreciate the validity of "peer-reviewed research" and the scientific method. It's hard to refute and discredit the effectiveness of the findings based on unsupported conjecture. Can we at least concede that TSS is not "snake oil" and there is a use for it other than making your wallet lighter? Sure it's not for everyone, especially within the context of a planted tank -- whether it matters if it's lightly vs. heavily planted I'm uncertain. But even within the context of a planted tank, in an unestablished tank or in a pinch one can reap the benefits of nitrifying bacteria 'on demand.' I think the notion of "time is money" and just having another "tool" in the proverbial shed is appealing and just adds to the repertoire of things available to us as hobbyists -- newbie or seasoned.


Ask and you shall receive.........:eek5:


plantbrain said:


> I really do not specialize in nitrifying bacteria, but.....they do use a lot of O2 to oxidize the NH4, but..............
> 
> Come on, put on the thinking caps here, stop with the blind adherence to marketing "scams" as Mark Twain would often say.
> 
> ...


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Feel like I passed the baton to the anchor in the relay.


----------



## ua hua (Oct 30, 2009)

houseofcards said:


> Feel like I passed the baton to the anchor in the relay.


:hihi: Yeah so don't drop it Tom your in the lead.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

ua hua said:


> :hihi: Yeah so don't drop it Tom your in the lead.


I'll try not to, I'm pretty exhausted! :biggrin:


----------



## Chronados (Jan 28, 2013)

plantbrain said:


> I really do not specialize in nitrifying bacteria, but.....they do use a lot of O2 to oxidize the NH4, but..............
> 
> Come on, put on the thinking caps here, stop with the blind adherence to marketing "scams" as Mark Twain would often say.
> 
> ...


Tom, I agree with your point in that there are plenty of other way to cycle a tank, and that the focus should be on growing plants to absorb said ammonia. However, I'm not qualified to really discuss the issue, so can you verify/refute that the peer-reviewed journal claiming the bacteria used in Safestart is the same as what is found in aquariums? Because if you do, it goes to prove what the only thing I was saying all along. No, it's not needed. But then, neither is CO2 right? The plants we grow were all harvested from natural environments where there was no CO2 injection. Yet, we still use CO2 as a way of growing plants better or faster. It's a tool. The *only claims* I have made so far (which several people have tried to muddle and put words in my mouth in the last 7 pages) is that

1) Safestart contains the correct nitrifying bacteria (based on their findings - again, you would be the best person to verify this out of anyone in this thread. You may not specialize in bacteria but you can at least verify that their scientific method was not flawed in some way)
2) Sometimes it's convenient/important to have the ability to add nitrifying bacteria at will.


----------



## ua hua (Oct 30, 2009)

Chronados said:


> No, it's not needed. But then, neither is CO2 right? The plants we grow were all harvested from natural environments where there was no CO2 injection.


Co2 is needed for plants to grow although some will grow with the little amount that is found in non co2 injected tanks albeit at slower rates. All the plants we use are found in natural environments where there is co2 whether they get it from the water they are found in or from atmospheric co2 which is where most of the plants we grow get it from since they are exposed to the air most of the time.


----------



## Fiftymeatballs (Mar 30, 2011)

My ph crashed to 3!! in my (NON planted) discus tank last year after adding a lot of driftwood and having no buffering capacity. I had to recycle a fully stocked tank, no where to put the fish. 

I turned to tetra safestart and it surprisingly worked for me BUT not the first two bottles. The expiration dates were nearing and they didn't seem to have any effect. I emailed Tetra and to my surprise they sent me two new bottles without question. Those bottles did work!! It seems like the luck of the draw to me. Hence why you have so many mixed answers of saying yes it works and others saying its snake oil. 

You can speed things up even more if you give the bacteria an optimum ph for growth, I believe it was around 8 but don't quote me. At lower PH's bacteria growth slows or can even go dormant. Even lower it dies like mine did.


----------



## ua hua (Oct 30, 2009)

Fiftymeatballs said:


> My ph crashed to 3!! in my (NON planted) discus tank last year after adding a lot of driftwood and having no buffering capacity. I had to recycle a fully stocked tank, no where to put the fish.
> 
> I turned to tetra safestart and it surprisingly worked for me BUT not the first two bottles. The expiration dates were nearing and they didn't seem to have any effect. I emailed Tetra and to my surprise they sent me two new bottles without question. Those bottles did work!! It seems like the luck of the draw to me. Hence why you have so many mixed answers of saying yes it works and others saying its snake oil.
> 
> You can speed things up even more if you give the bacteria an optimum ph for growth, I believe it was around 8 but don't quote me. At lower PH's bacteria growth slows or can even go dormant. Even lower it dies like mine did.


Are you sure your pH was at 3? That seems awfully low.(like almost vinegar)

That is pretty low for adding some driftwood and low buffering. There is several South American fish keepers that have a hard time getting there pH in the low 5-5.5 range. A pH of 3 is 10x more acidic than a pH of 4 and a pH of 3 is 100x more acidic than a pH of 5


----------



## Chronados (Jan 28, 2013)

ua hua said:


> Co2 is needed for plants to grow although some will grow with the little amount that is found in non co2 injected tanks albeit at slower rates. All the plants we use are found in natural environments where there is co2 whether they get it from the water they are found in or from atmospheric co2 which is where most of the plants we grow get it from since they are exposed to the air most of the time.


Sorry, I should have clarified. What I said was neither is CO2* injection*, which implied CO2 levels above atmospheric levels. Can you tell me of a natural system with 30ppm CO2? My point is natural systems can clearly grow the plant without CO2 injection, but obviously it's still useful to be able to inject it. Exact same argument with BB.


----------



## Fiftymeatballs (Mar 30, 2011)

ua hua said:


> Are you sure your pH was at 3? That seems awfully low.(like almost vinegar)
> 
> That is pretty low for adding some driftwood and low buffering. There is several South American fish keepers that have a hard time getting there pH in the low 5-5.5 range. A pH of 3 is 10x more acidic than a pH of 4 and a pH of 3 is 100x more acidic than a pH of 5


I added two gigantic pieces of malaysian driftwood. The KH here in NY is almost 0 from the tap. 

The reading came from my Milwaukee PH controller. I calibrate this with 4.0 and 7.0 solution. If it was off it couldn't have been by more than 1. So even a PH of 4 is very low. But regardless my PH crashed, bacteria died. TSS worked.


----------



## zodduska (Aug 14, 2013)

plantbrain said:


> Most folks have a friend or another tank they can use the filter sponges etc, to cycle a new tank, and this is for folks who do not even have or keep plants.


First let me say I have an enormous amount of respect for you Tom. It is interesting that you call BB in a bottle Snake Oil but go on to point out the tried and true method of seeding new tanks with BB from a healthy established tank, how is the net effect of rapid cycling any different from doing the same thing with BB in a bottle?


----------



## jpappy789 (Jul 28, 2013)

Chronados said:


> Sorry, I should have clarified. What I said was neither is CO2* injection*, which implied CO2 levels above atmospheric levels. Can you tell me of a natural system with 30ppm CO2? My point is natural systems can clearly grow the plant without CO2 injection, but obviously it's still useful to be able to inject it. Exact same argument with BB.


Except for "aquatic" plants that have parts growing out of the water, in which case they have access to about 400 ppm CO2. :icon_wink


----------



## waterfaller1 (Jul 5, 2006)

The only one I like is Dr. Tim's One And Only. I have used it for years and it has never failed me.


----------



## Chronados (Jan 28, 2013)

jpappy789 said:


> Except for "aquatic" plants that have parts growing out of the water, in which case they have access to about 400 ppm CO2. :icon_wink


Yes, you're right. But a lot of those plants grow without said access too . My point was just that quite a few aspects of a planted tank are different from what "naturally occurs," so I think we should be treating bacterial supplements (assuming they work - and again, I've only ever talked about Safestart and Biospira in this thread) as a tool to be used in certain circumstances and not something to be avoided altogether.


----------



## ipkiss (Aug 9, 2011)

See, this thread is exactly why we need to "somewhat" agree on what to tell someone in the thread that's running next to it:  Am I changing too much water?

What do you tell her? 
Patience? 
BB in a bottle?
Moar plants!
Throw it all together? 

Daily 50-90% water changes do wear on the psyche. I've done it. That's why I lean towards the extra BB for help and pick D. At this point, the argument seemed to have moved onto semantics and "gotchas."


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Chronados said:


> ...You don't NEED water changes either. You can balance a tank to require almost no water changes. But it's still nice to have as a tool...





Chronados said:


> ....But then, neither is CO2 right? The plants we grow were all harvested from natural environments where there was no CO2 injection. Yet, we still use CO2 as a way of growing plants better or faster. It's a tool...


I can appreciate some of your comments, but this is where you lose me. Your trying to equate using BB in a bottle with water changes and co2 injection. Your saying they're all tools (your words).

Let's take a look at that. If you remove water changes and co2 from the planted tank hobby, you have pretty much stepped back in time, a long time and have removed the majority of tanks and probably forum members on TPT. If you stop using BB in a bottle, what's the impact? Do you see the difference? Water changes and co2 injection are pretty much the backbone of having a successful tank under EI, ADA, and most other systems. I know someone is going to come in here and say "I don't do water changes and I don't dose co2" of course, but without these it would severally downside the hobby and make most tanks very limited in terms of plants, style, and interest. I'll go as far to say the water change is probably the single best thing one can do, whether they're growing plants or not. Again, can you see the difference. The impact of BB in a bottle can not even remotely by compared to that of water changes and co2 injection in planted aquaria.


----------



## Chronados (Jan 28, 2013)

houseofcards said:


> I can appreciate some of your comments, but this is where you lose me. Your trying to equate using BB in a bottle with water changes and co2 injection. Your saying they're all tools (your words).
> 
> Let's take a look at that. If you remove water changes and co2 from the planted tank hobby, you have pretty much stepped back in time, a long time and have removed the majority of tanks and probably forum members on TPT. If you stop using BB in a bottle, what's the impact? Do you see the difference? Water changes and co2 injection are pretty much the backbone of having a successful tank under EI, ADA, and most other systems. I know someone is going to come in here and say "I don't do water changes and I don't dose co2" of course, but without these it would severally downside the hobby and make most tanks very limited in terms of plants, style, and interest. I'll go as far to say the water change is probably the single best thing one can do, whether they're growing plants or not. Again, can you see the difference. The impact of BB in a bottle can not even remotely by compared to that of water changes and co2 injection in planted aquaria.



While the impact of BB in a bottle does not compare to water changes and CO2 injection (I never said it was), the concept behind it is the same, which is why I brought them up as comparisons. They are all tools that's not always needed, but they have their uses, agreed? That's all I've been saying this whole time. Just like getting rid of water changes and CO2 injection would hamper the hobby, I think not using BB in a bottle ever, limits you to slower cycles and fewer solutions to a tank crash.


----------



## Jeff5614 (Dec 29, 2005)

Chronados said:


> You misunderstood me, I am saying the same thing you are. It's not needed at all times, but there are uses for it. Such as setting up a tank, if you are impatient (like me). I was not arguing against you


I knew what you were saying. My reply just didn't come across that way, but then that's nothing new, lol.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Chronados said:


> While the impact of BB in a bottle does not compare to water changes and CO2 injection (I never said it was), the concept behind it is the same, which is why I brought them up as comparisons. They are all tools that's not always needed, but they have their uses, agreed? That's all I've been saying this whole time. Just like getting rid of water changes and CO2 injection would hamper the hobby, I think not using BB in a bottle ever, limits you to slower cycles and fewer solutions to a tank crash.


I personally think your analogy is still very flawed. Your still putting co2/wc on the small level as BB in a bottle, but simply calling them tools. The main difference is every planted tank can be started and maintained without the TSS, but many planted tanks can not be maintained without co2 and wc. There is a distinct difference. It's like comparing a Boulders impact to a pebble if it falls off a cliff and lands on your head. :eek5:


----------



## Chronados (Jan 28, 2013)

houseofcards said:


> I personally think your analogy is still very flawed. Your still putting co2/wc on the small level as BB in a bottle, but simply calling them tools. The main difference is every planted tank can be started and maintained without the TSS, but many planted tanks can not be maintained without co2 and wc. There is a distinct difference. It's like comparing a Boulders impact to a pebble if it falls off a cliff and lands on your head. :eek5:


Ok, I see where you are coming from now. I don't think my analogy is flawed, ie incorrect, just imperfect in terms of importance. Most tank can technically be maintained without CO2 injection. The plants that have high CO2 requirements still find a way to survive in the wild, oftentimes due to semi-emersion like you said, which you can replicate in a home aquarium through various means. Obviously, this is much harder to do than just letting bacteria grow, but I think the comparison of the two concepts is fair. But let's not get too sidetracked on another tangent 

Do you at least agree now that there are times where BB in a bottle (that work) can be useful? Because that's all my argument after page 2 or 3 boils down to. Before that we were talking about whether or not Safestart does what it says it does, but I think we settled that issue already. I never said you need to have it. You can get almost all the nutrients you need through standard food, but it's still sometimes nice/convenient to take vitamin supplements and I don't think it's fair to shun said products altogether (or advise other people to do so). Rather, they should be advised, that:

1) There are some that work
2) They need to be used in the proper conditions
3) There are specific applications for their use, and you don't need to use them all the time (though you can if you really want, I suppose peace of mind is also something people pay for all the time)


----------



## jpappy789 (Jul 28, 2013)

If a new person acts on bad advice and purchases a bunch of fish with a new tank, end up with a huge N waste problem and then goes to a forum asking for advice they are going to get a range of opinions. Some will suggest going the water change route, some will say add some plants (which then brings in the issue of "caring for" said plants), some will say add a BB product or mix and match those options. Is any one reason inherently better than the other? I'd argue no. There are time/money consequences with all of them.

Similarly, if a new person acts on bad advise and thinks they need an overpowering T5HO over their 10 gallon to grow some plants and then runs into algae issues, they may end up asking for advice on a forum as well. Their options may range from toning down the light to adding CO2 (even though that seems to be a poor analogy for some reason), or whatever may be the case. Again, there's certain drawbacks to whatever option you choose and you're certainly not limited to one method.

And people at any level can get stuck in certain situations, regardless. But these are pretty common examples you run into on just about every FW forum. And in the end you can't control what the person decides is their best option...it's their time and money, not yours. Give your opinion and leave it at that...I feel like this whole thread has just been running in circles LOL.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

The only thing I feel comfortable saying is that TSS contains nitrifying bacteria other than that I would not advice using it in a planted tank. The don't think your really gaining anything.



Chronados said:


> .. *Most tank can technically be maintained without CO2 injection. The plants that have high CO2 requirements still find a way to survive in the wild, oftentimes due to semi-emersion like you said, which you can replicate in a home aquarium through various means.*...


OK you don't really believe that do you. 

Are we now going to get into a debate about the world 'maintained' If your referring to certain plants slowly dying and the tank being overrun with algae than OK they can be 'maintained' If your referring to a lush, healthy tank with vibrant growth that someone would actually want to look at, then no they can not be 'maintained.' Is is not the wild, if it was we wouldn't use filters, additional light, fertilizers, nothing. Come on, really! Tanks without co2 are very limited to light, plant species, etc. Just cause something is technically 'alive' in your tank doesn't really matter if it looks like crap. Kinda defeats the whole point of doing this.


----------



## Chronados (Jan 28, 2013)

houseofcards said:


> The only thing I feel comfortable saying is that TSS contains nitrifying bacteria other than that I would not advice using it in a planted tank. The don't think your really gaining anything.


You would not advise using it EVER in a planted tank? Or you would not advise always using it.

If someone made a post saying they added too many fish at once, had an ammonia spike, were doing water changes and the fish were still struggling, you don't think it's beneficial to say, hey, try this product. It could help you out.

Or, if someone's cycle was stuck, you don't think it might be helpful to tell them, hey, try this product, it will speed up your cycle and save you some time/frustration?



houseofcards said:


> OK you don't really believe that do you.
> 
> Are we now going to get into a debate about the world 'maintained' If your referring to certain plants slowly dying and the tank being overrun with algae than OK they can be 'maintained' If your referring to a lush, healthy tank with vibrant growth that someone would actually want to look at, then no they can not be 'maintained.' Is is not the wild, if it was we wouldn't use filters, additional light, fertilizers, nothing. Come on, really! Tanks without co2 are very limited to light, plant species, etc. Just cause something is technically 'alive' in your tank doesn't really matter if it looks like crap. Kinda defeats the whole point of doing this.


How do you think plants grow in the wild? No, we're not getting into a debate over this. Whether or not my analogy is correct doesn't matter to my argument that TSS is a viable TOOL. I'll say you're right and I should not have made the comparison between TSS and CO2/water changes. Debate closed.

Now, can you deny that TSS is a useful tool in some situations?


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

Ok, I'm going to say no, because your always better off with water changes, plants and taking time putting your fish in. Remember this thread is about TSS in a planted tank. * There has been absolutely no eviidence brought forward that in a planted tank this stuff will do anything more for you than the plants and WC already are in terms of putting fish in.* If we are talking about planted tanks everyone here should have access to plants and water changes.

I'm done here. I'll be more than happy to have you get the last word in and let people decide by the discussion in the thread (which is what I said about 5 pages ago). I'll even subscribe to your 41G Osaka thread. I'll give you some good advice there about algae control. I know even more about that than I do about planted tanks and cycling. :hihi:


----------



## jpappy789 (Jul 28, 2013)

houseofcards said:


> *Ok, I'm going to say no, because your always better off with water changes, plants and taking time putting your fish in.*
> 
> I'm done here. I'll be more than happy to have you get the last word in and let people decide by the discussion in the thread (which is what I said about 5 pages ago). I'll even subscribe to your 41G Osaka thread. I'll give you some good advice there about algae control. I know even more about that than I do about planted tanks and cycling. :hihi:


And yet that methodology just isn't always possible...I guess I'll leave it at that since it's already been brought up multiple times. roud:


----------



## ua hua (Oct 30, 2009)

The End....


----------



## Chronados (Jan 28, 2013)

houseofcards said:


> Ok, I'm going to say no, because your always better off with water changes, plants and taking time putting your fish in.


Well, yes, assuming everyone does everything properly, you don't need it, but life (and inexperience) happens. Saying you're *always* better off is simply not accounting for any kind of extenuating circumstance.



houseofcards said:


> I'll even subscribe to your 41G Osaka thread. I'll give you some good advice there about algae control. I know even more about that than I do about planted tanks and cycling. :hihi:


I don't have any algae (yet) aside from the diatoms on the fungus that the otos won't touch. *Knocks on wood* Some anubias leaves were dying due to the DSM though, but I couldn't pass on a deal I got a while back!

Edit: The end


----------



## roadmaster (Nov 5, 2009)

plantbrain said:


> I really do not specialize in nitrifying bacteria, but.....they do use a lot of O2 to oxidize the NH4, but..............
> 
> Come on, put on the thinking caps here, stop with the blind adherence to marketing "scams" as Mark Twain would often say.
> 
> ...


:thumbsup::thumbsup:


----------



## Diana (Jan 14, 2010)

> But, every few weeks, a new cohort comes along.


Which is why I keep posting about the fishless cycle. 
By raising the bacteria first, then adding the fish, the fish are safe. 
Included in the article is the comment that plants are part of the removal system of the various nitrogens, and that a properly set up planted tank may not need to go through the full fishless cycle. 
However, the plants really need to be thriving, and how many beginners get it all just right the first time? 
Included in the article that if you want the fishless cycle to go faster, then add more bacteria to jump start it. 

Included in the fishless cycle article are also water parameters to grow these bacteria at the fastest rate. If someone is having a problem with a new tank they stocked too soon, or an established tank that has crashed, then getting the bacteria going as fast as possible is important. If you add one of the bottled products with Nitrospira to a tank that has crashed, or a cycled filter, without fixing what went wrong, then the new bacteria may not make it, either. Thus, the water chemistry information.

Have I, personally ever bought Nitrospira... 
No. When it first came out I already had several tanks running, and could always rely on having enough bacteria, and plenty of patience to start a new tank. 
Would I ever? 
Probably not just for new fish. I would plan to buy more fish, and before I bought them I would do the fishless cycle in a tank, or set up a planted quarantine tank so that I knew the ammonia etc. would not be an issue. 
Would I, if I had an emergency overload of ammonia? Probably, yes. Water changes are great, but if I did not have a big enough supply of bacteria to share, then buying more seems a good option. (So far this has not happened. When a tank crashed I either moved the fish to other tanks, or shared media from several donor tanks to build up the population)
But I am still in favor of it under several circumstances, and will continue to add information about these products when they are a viable option for the question or problem being presented.


----------



## houseofcards (Mar 21, 2009)

ua hua said:


> The End....





Chronados said:


> ..
> Edit: The end


Doesn't anyone respect a soft thread close. 
:hihi:


----------



## vanz (Dec 16, 2013)

Wow what an interesting back and forth thread about tetra safestart. I'm just starting up and want to cycle my tank the quickest way. I saw someone mention this product so I went and searched it. 

I have no one to borrow a seeded filter from. And don't have any plants. I'm going to do low light plants. So 

From reading this thread I see that houseofcards think this product does nothing and that plants will do the same, I think. Chronados says it speeds up the cycling process faster than using seeded filter or plants. 

So should I just buy plants to cycle my tank or safestart? I would like the quickest way possible. My tank has all brand new substrate, stones, and driftwood not used in previous tanks. Also brand new filter. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Texan78 (Nov 17, 2013)

Stir that pot...LoL

No matter what anyone tells you there is going to be someone else to tell you it isn't right then that other person not agreeing. 

API and Prime are both good products but nothing can replace having plants. If you can't support live plants at the moment then go with the BB supplements and wait it out and do your WC. I don't agree nor do I think you have to go out and spend hundreds of extra dollars just to get a tank going and cycled. People do it daily with fish only tanks so it can be done if you have the patience.


----------



## jrh (Sep 9, 2007)

I'll use Dr Tims. He's the guy who invented sypro gyra AFAIK


----------



## vanz (Dec 16, 2013)

Texan78 said:


> Stir that pot...LoL
> 
> No matter what anyone tells you there is going to be someone else to tell you it isn't right then that other person not agreeing.
> 
> API and Prime are both good products but nothing can replace having plants. If you can't support live plants at the moment then go with the BB supplements and wait it out and do your WC. I don't agree nor do I think you have to go out and spend hundreds of extra dollars just to get a tank going and cycled. People do it daily with fish only tanks so it can be done if you have the patience.


I just ordered a bottle from big als. only $8 for 8oz. not sure if my system can support anything yet. Still new to this whole planted tank thing. And I would only put in a few plants in my 40g, so even then, I don't think a few anubias and fissiden will be enough to jump start a 40g right? Hopefully I receive a bottle that is not dead. Confused on the whole, bottle may have gotten too hot or too cold. What's the right temp for this thing??


----------



## twentypoundtabby (Dec 7, 2013)

Hello,
I was wondering if anyone knows how the BB stay alive in the bottles until they are bought?
My understanding was that without ammonia the BB in our tanks and filters quickly starve and die off. Are these bottled BB given some sort of long lasting food supply? Are they in some kind of suspended animation?

I'm not trying to start an argument on this, I'm just curious on how it works.
I personally haven't used bottled BB, but I've also had access to cycled tank gravel and filter media since before they came on the market. And I'm patient.


----------



## lipadj46 (Apr 6, 2011)

twentypoundtabby said:


> Hello,
> I was wondering if anyone knows how the BB stay alive in the bottles until they are bought?
> My understanding was that without ammonia the BB in our tanks and filters quickly starve and die off. Are these bottled BB given some sort of long lasting food supply? Are they in some kind of suspended animation?
> 
> ...




more or less they are in a state of suspended animation. I've used tetra safe start start before and it works as advertised. Nite out also has worked for me.


----------

