Do quick start products hinder beneficial bacteria growth?
-
bettaMagenta - Posts: 430
- Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2022 2:01 am
Do quick start products hinder beneficial bacteria growth?
My 45-gallon tank is up and running - 6 small fish so far, plenty of mechanical filtration, and a sponge filter from my holding tank that used to house the 3 Blue Acaras. That sponge filter was originally in a 10-gallon, but it's rated for 20 gallons, so I'm assuming it can handle the bioload of 20 gallons worth of fish. The amount of water isn't really relevant, right? I've got some Quick Start on hand, and I added it when I introduced the first fish and before adding the sponge filter. Since Quick Start isn't the live beneficial bacteria that naturally colonizes filters, I'm wondering if adding it a few more times when I introduce new fish might inhibit the growth of a natural colony in my mechanical filters. Should I hold off on adding Quick Start until I'm sure my filters have a solid colony established?
Re: Do quick start products hinder beneficial bacteria growth?
I think you're referring to the stuff I added to my tank - Quick Start is essentially a bottled bacteria supplement, meant to jumpstart the nitrogen cycle in new aquariums.
-
TwinTankman - Posts: 62
- Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2022 1:55 am
Re: Do quick start products hinder beneficial bacteria growth?
I don't trust API Quick Start. Their research doesn't cut it for me.
First off, they used liver fish - not exactly the most reliable test subjects. And they fed them, which means the ammonia output varied. They didn't even provide the exact amount of ammonia being produced in the tanks. They only tested twice a week, which is a huge gap - 3.5 days between tests. That's a lot of time for readings to spike and then drop.
I also want to know about the condition of the fish during the test. Did any die? Were any injured? The study wasn't even published in a scientific journal, and it wasn't an independent study.
When I ran the numbers, I found that the highest ammonia level in the control tanks was 1.6 ppm. Using a pH of 7.65 and a temperature of 77F, the actual toxic ammonia works out to 0.0404. I wouldn't even bother changing the water for that level.
The nitrite levels were another story. The control tanks peaked at 6 ppm, and stayed between 4 and 6 ppm for 10 consecutive days. That's not good for the fish. Nitrite takes a day or two to work its way out of a fish's system, but as long as it's still in the water, it's not leaving.
There are several bacteria that can oxidize ammonia in our tanks, but the one that can process both nitrite and ammonia is only found in Dr. Tim's One and Only and Tetra's Safe Start. I can vouch for Dr. Tim's - I've used it to cycle tanks in under two weeks and fully stock them. I've done it multiple times.
As for Quick Start inhibiting colonization, yes, it will. If the bacteria in Quick Start consume ammonia or nitrite, the beneficial bacteria will take longer to colonize because they'll be competing for food. I think Quick Start might be able to protect fish during a fish-in cycle with a very light load, but I would never recommend a fish-in cycle. It's just not worth the risk.
First off, they used liver fish - not exactly the most reliable test subjects. And they fed them, which means the ammonia output varied. They didn't even provide the exact amount of ammonia being produced in the tanks. They only tested twice a week, which is a huge gap - 3.5 days between tests. That's a lot of time for readings to spike and then drop.
I also want to know about the condition of the fish during the test. Did any die? Were any injured? The study wasn't even published in a scientific journal, and it wasn't an independent study.
When I ran the numbers, I found that the highest ammonia level in the control tanks was 1.6 ppm. Using a pH of 7.65 and a temperature of 77F, the actual toxic ammonia works out to 0.0404. I wouldn't even bother changing the water for that level.
The nitrite levels were another story. The control tanks peaked at 6 ppm, and stayed between 4 and 6 ppm for 10 consecutive days. That's not good for the fish. Nitrite takes a day or two to work its way out of a fish's system, but as long as it's still in the water, it's not leaving.
There are several bacteria that can oxidize ammonia in our tanks, but the one that can process both nitrite and ammonia is only found in Dr. Tim's One and Only and Tetra's Safe Start. I can vouch for Dr. Tim's - I've used it to cycle tanks in under two weeks and fully stock them. I've done it multiple times.
As for Quick Start inhibiting colonization, yes, it will. If the bacteria in Quick Start consume ammonia or nitrite, the beneficial bacteria will take longer to colonize because they'll be competing for food. I think Quick Start might be able to protect fish during a fish-in cycle with a very light load, but I would never recommend a fish-in cycle. It's just not worth the risk.
-
bettaMagenta - Posts: 430
- Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2022 2:01 am
Re: Do quick start products hinder beneficial bacteria growth?
I used the API brand name for simplicity, but my main concern isn't specific to their product. I'm wondering if these shelf-stable, bottled bacteria solutions - regardless of the brand or type - could potentially hinder the growth of naturally occurring beneficial bacteria in our filter media.
In my understanding, naturally occurring beneficial bacteria wouldn't survive on a store shelf, so it seems counterintuitive to rely on these bottled solutions. Instead, would it be more effective to perform daily or every-other-day water changes to maintain a healthy environment, rather than adding a 'starter' once fish are already in the tank?
In my understanding, naturally occurring beneficial bacteria wouldn't survive on a store shelf, so it seems counterintuitive to rely on these bottled solutions. Instead, would it be more effective to perform daily or every-other-day water changes to maintain a healthy environment, rather than adding a 'starter' once fish are already in the tank?