Bacteria in a bottle, Myth or Fact

[alex77619]

Did you look at the results on this thread - where ammonia was added to a 5 gallon tank - with no carbon source - and bacteria depending on the level of ammonia in the tank - were able to decrease it to 0 within a day or so? Many other products did not work - however unless there was an extraneous carbon source. Pseudomonas (shewanella) - I do not believe (but point me to it) use ammonia alone as a food source (with only Co2 as the carbon source). For example in a waste treatment plant - there is a lot of organic carbon.

The only product that seemed to work here was one that required refrigeration and a short expiration date. Which bacteria was 'in the bottle' I dont know. (This is Fritz Turbo 9000). According to the manufacturer - these are nitrifying bacteria (not heterotrophs).... unless I'm misremembering. Thanks for your expertise

Yea i read through all these experiment too And in the experiment i posted there's that product from BI it actually used some kind of chemical to bind ammonia and nitrite that was why it's experiment show weird color result. It actually is a chemical reaction not biological reaction. But sorry that my native language is not English so hard for me to share everything I learned from my study. But it is true that there's some product that doesn't work and some do.

And also Hay bacillus is also a common product that's put into these bottle to help with nitrifying. So due to it's impossible to know what they put into the bottle we just need to be more patient when it comes to cycling tanks i believe.

 

[MnFish1]

Yea i read through all these experiment too And in the experiment i posted there's that product from BI it actually used some kind of chemical to bind ammonia and nitrite that was why it's experiment show weird color result. It actually is a chemical reaction not biological reaction. But sorry that my native language is not English so hard for me to share everything I learned from my study. But it is true that there's some product that doesn't work and some do.

And also Hay bacillus is also a common product that's put into these bottle to help with nitrifying. So due to it's impossible to know what they put into the bottle we just need to be more patient when it comes to cycling tanks i believe.

Why? in the experiments here - Fritz 9000 redacted ammonia from 8 ppm to 0 within 48 hours?

 

[alex77619]

I do believe u this bottle works but there's also some bottle didn't work. I hope to be able to have someone do some lab work to the content for 16S rRNA testing to identify what strain of bacteria is in it.

 

[alex77619]

And also last part of the experiment, using these vial still can grow bacteria with no problem, the CW　vial become cloudy indicating bacteria bloom.

(4) Growth of bacteria

This part is for simple presentation to everyone.
I use the simplest picture to discriminate without using the usual petri dish or the way of counting the nine squares.
This stage of the experiment used two repetitions

test method
1. Take 6 ml of sterilized seawater (to avoid interference from bacteria) and add 0.1 ml or 0.1 g of 6 commercially available products.
2. Place at 27 °C for 48 hours. Photo record~


Test Results

1. Before the reaction, the SE and BI groups showed white turbidity and yellow turbidity when they entered the water.
The CW group has a little turbidity, and the rest are clear.
2. After the reaction, the CW group became obviously cloudy and cloudy .
It shows that the fungi may grow in a large amount, and the number of bacteria is confirmed by a microscope.
No other significant changes in the remaining groups


Figure 10. Before the reaction (from left to right AP / SE / SI / BI / 50 / CW)

Figure 11. After the reaction (from left to right AP / SE /SI /50 /BI /CW Sorry, BI and 50 are reversed at this time)

Feel free to do these tests on different product and see if there's any result.

 

[MnFish1]

And also last part of the experiment, using these vial still can grow bacteria with no problem, the CW　vial become cloudy indicating bacteria bloom.

The problem with this experiment is that it doesn't mimic what happens in a tank - unlike the experiments done here?

 

[alex77619]

But think about it another way, it does mimic the bacteria in a bottle doesn't it? Go a step backward of where your bacteria come from? That's the thread topic right? If the bacteria is alive in a bottle it still should be in that experiment in a vial right?

 

[MnFish1]

But think about it another way, it does mimic the bacteria in a bottle doesn't it? Go a step backward of where your bacteria come from? That's the thread topic right? If the bacteria is alive in a bottle it still should be in that experiment in a vial right?

Well. First it’s too short a time. Second there is no substrate. Third I don’t know if the oxygen levels remain in a closed tube

What is your idea that nothing is alive in the bottled bacteria? Or that there are no nitrifying bacteria in the bottle. Or something else?

 

[alex77619]

Well. First it’s too short a time. Second there is no substrate. Third I don’t know if the oxygen levels remain in a closed tube

What is your idea that nothing is alive in the bottled bacteria? Or that there are no nitrifying bacteria in the bottle. Or something else?

Oh I am just to say one option about true tradition nitrifying bacteria do not spawn in to dormant spores (there's paper proving this already).

In my own option only heterotroph bacteria can be preserved and spores can dormant. Again I am assuming the product that works is using heterotroph bacteria to fill in the gap for tradition nitrifying bacteria to work. And nitrifying bacteria is everywhere even in fresh water there's a strain of bacteria that can survive in saltwater so this is why old way of cycling takes months. The radition nitrifying bacteria that can survive saltwater slowing build up colony. Using a bottle like fritz is just using heterotroph bacteria to help the first stage. Again if there's organic they can multiple really fast to a huge colony and than slowdown while they are only consuming NH4 NO2. This is the main reason some bacteria product will cause u a bacteria bloom and consumed all your oxygen and cause problem.

Here's a comparison of the two bacteria stain difference I had found:

Tradition nitrifying bacteria
Grow Speed: Slow, Multiple 2 times of size in 36Hr
Efficiency:Really Fast as they use the energy directly from NH4 NO2
Pro: specificity on Ammonia Nitrite.

Heterotroph bacteria
Grow Speed: Fast Multiple 2 times of size in 2Hr
Efficiency:Slow About 10times slower than tradition nitrifying bacteria as they need energy from other organic(Carbon Source or Sulfur)
Cons: Will consume organic too so not focusing on NH4 NO2. Which during a new tank cycle there's not much organic other than the organic you pour out from the bottle gave it no choose to use NH4 NO2 as food source after those organic is consumed.

Tradition nitrifying bacteria is also stronger than Heterotroph bacteria and therefore in a mature tank it is mostly nitrifying bacteria doing the nitrifying work not the heterotroph ones. Heterotroph prefer organic than ammonia and nitrite.


As of the question of substrate, had u ever fill a slimy film on ur glass inside ur tank that's not algae? That bacteria film, bacteria can grow on any surface no problem and they actually is not that picky. Plastic bio ball, glass beads and every shell live rock any surface can grow bacteria it just less surface area for them to have enough space to grow to enough colony for ur fish tank need.

Just sharing some information I found for everyone to discuss whats the science behind these bottle bacteria. Feel free if any of my point is incorrect or need more detail.

 

[MnFish1]

Oh I am just to say one option about true tradition nitrifying bacteria do not spawn in to dormant spores (there's paper proving this already).

In my own option only heterotroph bacteria can be preserved and spores can dormant. Again I am assuming the product that works is using heterotroph bacteria to fill in the gap for tradition nitrifying bacteria to work. And nitrifying bacteria is everywhere even in fresh water there's a strain of bacteria that can survive in saltwater so this is why old way of cycling takes months. The radition nitrifying bacteria that can survive saltwater slowing build up colony. Using a bottle like fritz is just using heterotroph bacteria to help the first stage. Again if there's organic they can multiple really fast to a huge colony and than slowdown while they are only consuming NH4 NO2. This is the main reason some bacteria product will cause u a bacteria bloom and consumed all your oxygen and cause problem.

Here's a comparison of the two bacteria stain difference I had found:

Tradition nitrifying bacteria
Grow Speed: Slow, Multiple 2 times of size in 36Hr
Efficiency:Really Fast as they use the energy directly from NH4 NO2
Pro: specificity on Ammonia Nitrite.

Heterotroph bacteria
Grow Speed: Fast Multiple 2 times of size in 2Hr
Efficiency:Slow About 10times slower than tradition nitrifying bacteria as they need energy from other organic(Carbon Source or Sulfur)
Cons: Will consume organic too so not focusing on NH4 NO2. Which during a new tank cycle there's not much organic other than the organic you pour out from the bottle gave it no choose to use NH4 NO2 as food source after those organic is consumed.

Tradition nitrifying bacteria is also stronger than Heterotroph bacteria and therefore in a mature tank it is mostly nitrifying bacteria doing the nitrifying work not the heterotroph ones. Heterotroph prefer organic than ammonia and nitrite.


As of the question of substrate, had u ever fill a slimy film on ur glass inside ur tank that's not algae? That bacteria film, bacteria can grow on any surface no problem and they actually is not that picky. Plastic bio ball, glass beads and every shell live rock any surface can grow bacteria it just less surface area for them to have enough space to grow to enough colony for ur fish tank need.

Just sharing some information I found for everyone to discuss whats the science behind these bottle bacteria. Feel free if any of my point is incorrect or need more detail.

So how do you explain the drop In ammonia I. The fritz 9000 without carbon added but only ammonia

 

[alex77619]

So how do you explain the drop In ammonia I. The fritz 9000 without carbon added but only ammonia

Heterotroph bacteria can consume ammonia too.... My experiment of that CW live heterotroph bacteria proves that too. 5 ppm Ammonia to 0 in 20 hr in a 6ml vial. It prefer eating organic but when environment only have ammonia they can eat that too. Just it's chicken for them not prime rib-eye.

In a mature tank, tradition nitrifying bacteria will become the majority of your biological filtration and it will cover every surface of the mature tank and that is why a mature tank with low organic waste like in the ocean can still do great job of nitrifying the Ammonia and NO2 and in a mature tank people no longer even test these. And even if you cut your return to your DT from your sump for couple of hr it won't be an issues.

But on the other hand, another problem of heterotroph bacteria is that they will eat organic and sometimes even infect wounds on coral and caused brown jelly disease or STN RTN. This is why a health tank need a strong protein skimmer or even active carbon to reduce organic water. You will not want to have your majority bacteria being the heterotroph bacteria.

 

[MnFish1]

Heterotroph bacteria can consume ammonia too.... My experiment of that CW live heterotroph bacteria proves that too. 5 ppm Ammonia to 0 in 20 hr in a 6ml vial. It prefer eating organic but when environment only have ammonia they can eat that too. Just it's chicken for them not prime rib-eye.

In a mature tank, tradition nitrifying bacteria will become the majority of your biological filtration and it will cover every surface of the mature tank and that is why a mature tank with low organic waste like in the ocean can still do great job of nitrifying the Ammonia and NO2 and in a mature tank people no longer even test these. And even if you cut your return to your DT from your sump for couple of hr it won't be an issues.

But on the other hand, another problem of heterotroph bacteria is that they will eat organic and sometimes even infect wounds on coral and caused brown jelly disease or STN RTN. This is why a health tank need a strong protein skimmer or even active carbon to reduce organic water. You will not want to have your majority bacteria being the heterotroph bacteria.

I disagree with some of this. First - http://www.bioconlabs.com/autoheterobac.html
Fritz-Zymeâ #7 (freshwater) and #9 (brackish and marine) contain pure cultures of live Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter bacteria. Fritz-Zymes #7 & #9 give nitrification a tremendous boost by introducing over two million nitrifying bacteria per ounce of product to rapidly accelerate the nitrification process. Ammonia and nitrite levels are quickly and significantly reduced to safe levels. Fish stress induced by high levels of ammonia and nitrites is also reduced and mortalities normally associated with "New Tank Syndrome" are sharply curtailed.

Second - just because of the rate they multiply, heterotrophic bacteria will far outnumber autotrophic bacteria IMO.

Third if you have read the experiments here - its been well described and discussed that heterotrophic bacteria can decrease ammonia. Have you read the thread?

Fourth - I continue to feel that the experiment you cited was too short, did not provide enough oxygenation or surface area for true nitrifying (autotrophic bacteria)

 

[alex77619]

I never say heterotropic bacteria won't consume ammonia. I said it can. Don't quite understand what did i say wrong. Hope someone can do a 16S rRNA testing to find out exactly what strain of bacteria is in it.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2045242/

My experiment sited which was from a lab doctor did this testing for several product on the market and surprisingly lot's of bottle had no live bacteria in it and fail the 16S rRNA test. I can only say this much about this. And I never saying your Fritz product won't work. I am just questioning what type of bacteria is in it. And again that article of course is written by Fritz so....

This whole tread is talking about bottle bacteria myth or truth isn't it? I agree some product works and some don't. And than I just wanted to find out why these working one how did they work. Which strain of bacteria did it work base on.

And the experiment in the lad I sited all vial were put in a vibrator for maximum surface aeration. It's just 6ml of liquid don't really need an air pump to have it aerated.

 

[brandon429]

Alex I've went back and read your overview of how bac work and what you state is familiar -- Ive typed similar posts in prior engagements here as we talk about what bacteria do and how they seed and transfer, naturally or by bottle. Sounds pretty accurate to me so far. I didn't read the experimental details, as stated I'm more concerned with what the tanks do but I can tell in your summary of bioslicks and colony formation timing you are familiar with microbiology and good testing protocols. good job man.

 

[MnFish1]

I never say heterotropic bacteria won't consume ammonia. I said it can. Don't quite understand what did i say wrong. Hope someone can do a 16S rRNA testing to find out exactly what strain of bacteria is in it.

I never said you said heterotrophic bacteria won't consume ammonia. I agree with you - but ONLY with a carbon source........... (a non-CO2 carbon source)

My experiment sited which was from a lab doctor did this testing for several product on the market and surprisingly lot's of bottle had no live bacteria in it and fail the 16S rRNA test. I can only say this much about this. And I never saying your Fritz product won't work. I am just questioning what type of bacteria is in it. And again that article of course is written by Fritz so....

Fritz product is kept cold (refrigerated) and shipped cold - and has a short expiration date. Their website (contrary to some of the others) specifically states what is contained in the product. With no added carbon source (contrary to some of the others tested - that required a carbon source) the Fritz 9000 worked to lower ammonia in a short period of time. I dont have a 16SRNA test here at home (LOL) and if you want to send from Fritz product to be tested - go ahead.

This whole tread is talking about bottle bacteria myth or truth isn't it? I agree some product works and some don't. And than I just wanted to find out why these working one how did they work. Which strain of bacteria did it work base on.

And the experiment in the lad I sited all vial were put in a vibrator for maximum surface aeration. It's just 6ml of liquid don't really need an air pump to have it aerated.

If you read the rest of the thread - you'll see why. Some didnt work. Some worked only with carbon + ammonia, Some worked with ammonia alone. The Fritz product performed the best - I believe Dr. Tims was second place.

The study you quote has multiple flaws that I can see. The length, the concentration of ammonia is higher than most manufacturers recommend. The nitrite concentrations are extremely high etc etc. Its an interesting discussion. I would suggest that you read the rest of the thread -the description of the experiments done - and then ask

 

[MnFish1]

Oh I am just to say one option about true tradition nitrifying bacteria do not spawn in to dormant spores (there's paper proving this already).

You are correct - they do not turn into spores - but at low temperature they do become dormant (in the absence of ammonia). There are also studies showing that pure nitrifiers also go dormant in high concentrations of ammonia - the bacteria are not killed - but they also aren't growing. According to @brandon429 he has heard of a tank that sat for 3 years in a garage - with no flow, etc - and remained 'cycled' when water was added

 

[brandon429]

searching real quick


https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/might-start-a-nano-15gal-column-need-advice.429907/#post-4990720

@Dj City
we still use your work, told you it was noteworthy
Its simply hard to find fallow testing for those intervals. I have another direct reference handy somewhere off reefcentral but its years ago, tricky to find. A man vat-stored live rocks again for about 3 yrs if I'm not wrong only bubbled for aeration, no heating, no feeding in the interim. he was purposefully trying to starve it to kill algae for a redo. same outcome, can oxidize on the 24 hour scale we use to define cycle ability. A true and reliable pattern, hard to source out indeed. who keeps rocks wet for three years lol/rare.

I predict any number of years you keep live rock wet in a container that isn't a positive pressure microbiology lab, the substrates will always pass a proof test for ability to oxidize on command. all required feed for microbes is secured via standard contamination routes/nature. Dr. Reef's unfed substrate test is a fine building reference for that mechanism as well. If I'm not mistaken, DJ City didn't even top off that well. this was likely salt sludge water for a while, osmotically unfriendly to bac-they still survived the holdover.

Dr Reef's test should be able to be spiked lightly w ammonia, get a 24 hours pass, then change all the water back out to no feed and continue on the starvation test. (that's the proposed outcome, fingers crossed. not sure of what mechanism allows the outcome/dormancy sounds most believable so far)


here's where I think the food came from unaccounted for in the garage:

-all garage gnats degrade nicely into ammonia. flies et al. they both vector in more nitrifiers by always landing on wet things for a drink, then skipping to another, and when drowned they degrade into feed for the current nitrifiers
-if you rip open a six foot section of gorilla duct tape, and loop it onto a garage wall backwards so the sticky part faces out like a giant fly trap, and check back in a month at all the adhered items, half of those degrade nicely into ammonia + are vectors for nonaquatic bacteria that get in the system, bloom temporarily due to hydration, die, and degrade back into nitrifier feed.
- the live rock he put into storage already carried years and years of bac support given no other inputs merely by its organic stores.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

These answers have already been discussed in this thread. Perhaps you haven't read the results of the experiments. I'm sorry to say I think you're just trying to 'make an argument' where there is no argument - but I'll try to answer your questions:

1. Obligate autotrophic nitrifying bacteria use CO2 as their carbon source. Not carbon in the water. (though they CAN use carbon in the water if its present). https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02328114
2. If you read the experiments that @Dr. Reef has done - you'll see that NSW + ammonia (various concentrations) + bacteria (various brands) were tested in several experiments that also had a control tank. (NSW and ammonia with no bacteria). I dont know what a chemical ammonia binder is. There was no carbon added. (unless there was some carbon in the 'bacteria in a bottle')
3. The results showed that the bacteria in a bottle from Fritz (which is shipped/stored cold - and has a concrete expiration date) was able to reduce 8 PPM ammonia to 0 within 48 hours. The others showed varying results - with some showing no change even after 7 days. The control did not change after 7 days.
4. At lower concentrations of ammonia (<4 ppm) some of the products seemed to work better - reducing ammonia down to 0 within 2-4 days. The control tank had no change in ammonia within 7 days.
5. In the last experiment - at the recommendation of a couple of the manufacturers a carbon source was added - and in these tests nearly all of the ammonia was processed within 2-4 days.
6. To answer your last question - how do you prove that the added bacteria are responsible for certain reactions - Having a control tank with no bacteria added that stays the same - when the tank with added bacteria reduces the ammonia to zero over 1-2 days - seems to prove that the bottled bacteria is playing a role in decreasing ammonia. Exactly 'how' they are doing so I don't know. The fact that its done without any added external carbon suggests that they are not heterotrophs (though as I mentioned - its entirely possible that there is a carbon source in the Fritz bottle...

As to the articles - please post a direct link - Its not up to me to prove you're correct -its up to you to make your point. You merely sent a link -which was written in dutch that required registration. you find the articles that prove your points.

I do not try to prove a thing , I just provide information.
As most of my information concerning marine aquaria is stored in the Makazi Baharini wiki, for using this information I have to credit the authors and or refer to the source. That is normal practice when protected information is used, the result of the work of others. In correspondence with the publication rights.

The start for proper research is knowing what you are testing . Forming conclusions from guesswork is not the correct way.
You say it yourself , it SEEMS TO PROVE.
As you explained obligate nitrifying bacteria( AOB and NOB) are autotrophs using HCO3. They do not produce spores . Will they be able to remove 8 ppm NH4 in 48 hrs from one day to the other!? Even when the bottle contains live, not active, AOB !? The minimum doubling time of AOB is 7-8 hours while the minimum doubling time of NOB is 10-13 hours (Philips et al. 2002). In salt water this is a lot slower. This when all conditions are optimal. Once active, AOB will increase the bio-load only with 0,20 gram to reduce one gram NH4.( heterotrophs will produce 8 grams bio-load to do the same) I expect AOB in a bottle not to be in optimum condition and may take some time to come out of a dormant non active condition. This is called the lag phase. From lag to log phase may take a few minutes to a few days, even a few weeks.
When an active bio-filter is removed for a few days it takes +- 48hrs to restore normal activity ( AOB + NOB) and +- 8 days to reach the previous capacity. But in this case we are not talking about a nitrifying biofilm and or bio filter.
High ammonia availability will inhibit NOB activity and NO2 is produced by AOB. NOB will not start to oxidise produced NO2 as long ammonia ( NH3) is measurable. If a level of 8 ppm ammonia is removed by AOB in 48 hrs NO2 should be sky high ( +- 20 ppm). This will show AOB or and AOA are responsible for reducing the ammonia content but will not prove bacteria from the bottle are responsible, one may assume it.

Different products, some based on lyophilized (freeze-dried) Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter bacteria together with heterotrophs, available since decades, for the incubation of biofilters and aquarium systems, are commercialized since the 70. None of them contained marine strains of bacteria. A lot of such products, commercialized this moment, the exact content is not provided and is not known by the user. Do they contain marine bacteria and archaea?
For decades it was ASSUMED it where the same bacteria responsible for nitrification. Marine aquaria and filters where incubated with garden soil bacteria for decades.
Archaea, responsible for +- 50% of the ammonium reduction in a marine environment and in marine aquaculture biofilters are not mentioned.

The coral holobiont does contain a huge diversity of marine bacteria as does a nitrifying biofilm in a marine bio-filter. The content of a bottle will not install the diversity needed.

My point of view a waste of money, these bacteria in a bottle , but one may assume it may contribute a bit to the diversity. One may also assume such products remove diversity in an established aquarium due to induced unnatural competition for essential building materials. For example if extremely fast growing trains of bacteria are introduced.

In an established aquarium ammonia can be removed fast just by adding carbohydrates.
Removing ammonia fast can be done fast with a chemical ammonia binder but I will never add such a product or any product based on Clinoptiloliet.

Installing a good and adequate ammonium reduction capacity just needs time which is for free. One can make the nitrogen content easily manageable by installing a simple bio-filter.

I do not ad products to my aquarium of which the exact content is not known, products of which I do not know the composition.

 

[MnFish1]

I do not try to prove a thing , I just provide information.
As most of my information concerning marine aquaria is stored in the Makazi Baharini wiki, for using this information I have to credit the authors and or refer to the source. That is normal practice when protected information is used, the result of the work of others. In correspondence with the publication rights.

The start for proper research is knowing what you are testing . Forming conclusions from guesswork is not the correct way.
You say it yourself , it SEEMS TO PROVE.
As you explained obligate nitrifying bacteria( AOB and NOB) are autotrophs using HCO3. They do not produce spores . Will they be able to remove 8 ppm NH4 in 48 hrs from one day to the other!? Even when the bottle contains live, not active, AOB !? The minimum doubling time of AOB is 7-8 hours while the minimum doubling time of NOB is 10-13 hours (Philips et al. 2002). In salt water this is a lot slower. This when all conditions are optimal. Once active, AOB will increase the bio-load only with 0,20 gram to reduce one gram NH4.( heterotrophs will produce 8 grams bio-load to do the same) I expect AOB in a bottle not to be in optimum condition and may take some time to come out of a dormant non active condition. This is called the lag phase. From lag to log phase may take a few minutes to a few days, even a few weeks.
When an active bio-filter is removed for a few days it takes +- 48hrs to restore normal activity ( AOB + NOB) and +- 8 days to reach the previous capacity. But in this case we are not talking about a nitrifying biofilm and or bio filter.
High ammonia availability will inhibit NOB activity and NO2 is produced by AOB. NOB will not start to oxidise produced NO2 as long ammonia ( NH3) is measurable. If a level of 8 ppm ammonia is removed by AOB in 48 hrs NO2 should be sky high ( +- 20 ppm). This will show AOB or and AOA are responsible for reducing the ammonia content but will not prove bacteria from the bottle are responsible, one may assume it.

Different products, some based on lyophilized (freeze-dried) Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter bacteria together with heterotrophs, available since decades, for the incubation of biofilters and aquarium systems, are commercialized since the 70. None of them contained marine strains of bacteria. A lot of such products, commercialized this moment, the exact content is not provided and is not known by the user. Do they contain marine bacteria and archaea?
For decades it was ASSUMED it where the same bacteria responsible for nitrification. Marine aquaria and filters where incubated with garden soil bacteria for decades.
Archaea, responsible for +- 50% of the ammonium reduction in a marine environment and in marine aquaculture biofilters are not mentioned.

The coral holobiont does contain a huge diversity of marine bacteria as does a nitrifying biofilm in a marine bio-filter. The content of a bottle will not install the diversity needed.

My point of view a waste of money, these bacteria in a bottle , but one may assume it may contribute a bit to the diversity. One may also assume such products remove diversity in an established aquarium due to induced unnatural competition for essential building materials. For example if extremely fast growing trains of bacteria are introduced.

In an established aquarium ammonia can be removed fast just by adding carbohydrates.
Removing ammonia fast can be done fast with a chemical ammonia binder but I will never add such a product or any product based on Clinoptiloliet.

Installing a good and adequate ammonium reduction capacity just needs time which is for free. One can make the nitrogen content easily manageable by installing a simple bio-filter.

I do not ad products to my aquarium of which the exact content is not known, products of which I do not know the composition.

Well. The manufacturer states that live nitrosomonas and nitrobacter are in the bottles do I think that they are lying??? No. They say they are pure cultures. Do I think they are lying? No. Could dormant bacteria rapidly become active within 2-3 days. Yes. If the concentration of life bacteria was high enough. Could there be other bacteria archaea which can be dormant and rapidly return in various conditions? I suppose so. Do I think every single product contains live nitrifying ie autotrophs? No. Do I think all of them work? Probably not. Do I think that they allow one to rapidly add fish coral to an aquarium as compred to a 6
Month cycle? Yes if used correctly.

 

[warlocktitan]

Ive used the microbelift in previous tanks but no real data. That stuff stinks so bad.

But it work very well as well

 

[RollTideReefer]

So I started tank with fish and live rock 3 1/2 weeks ago with Fritz Turbostart 900. I even added an extra bottle a week later for good measure. Ammonia is reading 0.05 or 0, hard to tell with Red Sea test. But in the past week my Nitrites have increased up to .4 - .5 depending on the day. They have held steady at that rate for about 6 days now. I know that Nitrite in a marine aquarium is not as significant but when can I expect the Nitrites to drop back down? I reduced feeding this weekend as suggested in a different thread. Is there anything else I can be doing to speed up that process? I have a leather coral and zoa frag that were added this weekend and seem to be doing fine. Any thoughts on the Nitrites here? Btw my Nitrates are at 3.