Cycling and cloudy water

[the loach]

You have no proof at all that any competitor hasn't got Nitrospira in their product. Show the study where it shows it hasn't. You only repeat they supposedly can't because of a patent. When you listed the patent the first time you assured me they didn't patent the bacteria, but just the probe. My argument was right that it did not prevent anyone from selling bacteria yet you did not want to admit it though you know you were wrong.
You are not a patent attorney and I doubt that you interpret this other patent right, but if you do happen to be right these products should be boycotted.

If anyone is doubting that just think of this. There is this L number catfish that is available. People don't know the scientific name, it just has this number. I get some, and find out how to breed them. I determine the catfish and find its scientific name. Now I don't just patent the breeding method, I patent the catfish, too. Due to evil employees, or an honest but stupid mistake of the USPTO the patent is granted. I now obtain the legal right to sue and harass anyone selling or breeding the catfish. Is that right? Is it good or evil.

If you don't think that is right you must condone and oppose these products. It is exactly the same for bacteria (see my link above..) or any other organism. Once again, it is clearly in patent law as well;

What Cannot Be Patented? Can I Patent a Living Thing?
It depends. If your invention is a product of nature, it falls under excluded subject matter. However, if your invention does not occur naturally and can only exist through some work on your part, you may be able to get a patent. For example:

• You cannot patent a combination of bacteria with beneficial properties if that combination occurs somewhere in nature
• You can patent a species of bacteria that you genetically alter to solve a common problem if that form does not occur naturally

But like I said, violations of patent law do sometimes happen. It still does not keep anyone from selling these bacteria.

 

[fishorama]

No, you're wrong, tl, no evil, just facts!! Bacteria +/or how to propagate, preserve or measure them are patentable. You need to actually read TTA's many papers or just some of them...the "other co.'s" bacteria products are not the same as nitrospira. Why else does it take 8+ weeks to cycle a tank with those other products? It's because they still have to go through the entire process to get to nitrospira, the 1 that tank needs to process nitrite. In case you need a simplified idea it's nitrobacter then nitrosomas species of bacteria that actually cycle tanks. Have you really been in this hobby as long as I have & not get that basic formula? (See any fishless cycling article that actually work). If either Fluval or Seachem products helped shouldn't it take a shorter amount of time to cycle than using just plain ammonia without additives? That works!! But takes up to 8 weeks...So what's the advantage? Given the 2 recent threads on Stability & its lack of effectiveness, why do you continue to support its use? I don't need "proof" other than the failure of it to speed cycling...& isn't that what is purported to do? Explain your thinking please.

Back to John the OP, when it's time to try again try 1 of the 2 products that have been proven to work (Dr.Tim's 1 & Only or Tetra Safe Start) & don't waste your time & $$ on what products "may" help (or not so much). You spent 2 months with Stability...You don't need to do it again!! If you want to slow cycle your tank, just get plain ammonia at the dollar store...It'll take up to 8 weeks...& cost you $1...Up to you

 

[the loach]

Bacteria +/or how to propagate, preserve or measure them are patentable.

Measure them, teach them to line dance, yes. You can not patent something that was already occurring, or is a "phenomenon of nature" This case with bacteria has already been dealt with in the supreme court:

Patentability of Living Organisms: Can a living organism be patented? - IP Wire

Can a living organism be patented? The quick answer is “sometimes.” by: Jake Mace | July 31, 2017 The Supreme Court made it clear that abstract ideas, natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not patentable subject matter.[1] So it really comes down to whether a living organism should be...

ipwire.com

If you only found an organism, then you CANNOT patent it. It doesn’t matter if you scoured the deepest Amazon jungle to find the rarest of insects – if it’s naturally occurring, then it’s not patentable. The Supreme Court dealt with this in Funk Brothers Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co. where the product was essentially a bacterial culture in powder or liquid form.[2] The Court held that although Kalo had discovered the bacteria and its unique ability to form a nitrogen-fixing association with legumes, the product was not patent eligible because the bacteria were a “phenomenon of nature.”[3] The Court stated that the qualities of the bacteria “are part of the storehouse of knowledge of all men” and “manifestations of laws of nature,” discovery of which is not patentable.[4]

I can only go by what TTA says. First he states the bacteria are not patented, it's the probe (but that somehow still prevents anyone from culturing bacteria). I am 100% correct in stating you don't need said probe, and that patent does not prevent anyone from culturing or selling bacteria. Then he says it's not just the probe, the bacteria themselves are patented. That gives 4 options;
1. the bacteria are in a combination not found in nature
2. the bacteria are modified
3. the bacteria are not patented, it's about something (like a probe) that helps production.
4. they are patented, but due to foul play or a mistake.

But for sake of argument, lets say the bacteria are patented. It's a non enforceable patent, just to intimidate competitors or advertising purposes. It does not stop any company from selling nitrifying bacteria. If brought to court, it is evident that the bacteria are non patentable in liquid form (see above supreme court ruling) and their activity (nitrifying) is a function of nature. That's a discovery, not a patent.

If either Fluval or Seachem products helped shouldn't it take a shorter amount of time to cycle than using just plain ammonia without additives? That works!! But takes up to 8 weeks...So what's the advantage? Given the 2 recent threads on Stability & its lack of effectiveness, why do you continue to support its use?

I don't support any bacterial products. If it takes 8 weeks I'd say it just contains water and is a useless product, but I don't conclude from one failed experience at a forum that it is a bogus product. Is that a scientific thing to do ? They might be crappy products, I don't know. I have noticed that if someone mentions Stability everyone comes over to trash the product and recommend Tim/Tetra (while admitting not having tried Stability themselves) but when someone comes over with the same problem with Tim or Tetra the thread is avoided and quickly buried. Why is that?
Also I am curious to know if the difference between Stability and Safe start is like night and day, why does Stability still have a higher rating on Amazon?

 

[johnwduncan]

I don't know, but just get what works, Dr. Tim's 1 & Only or Tetra Safe Start when you're days away from stocking!! Let's not have another thread of Stability (& now vs Fluval Cycle). Get what works & use it according to the directions!! Why try something that may or may not work? Go with a proven product or plan on a 6-8 week cycle...You've waited through floor refinishing, do you want to wait 2 more months? I don't & it's not my tank!...Does it save a couple $$? Or what? Why do you want to use some new (unproven) product? I'm sure I'm not the only 1 frustrated by your idea of yet another "cycling" idea (head bang!) Gah!

i havent gotten the floors yet. that was kind of a later idea. but i drained it to fill it up after the floors are done. no biggie. the stuff i got is even called fluval cycle. so i have heard it works and that in one persons opinion "the best bottled bacteria there is". by the time i ordered, it was all but too late.

 

[fishorama]

No, really, if you use Fluval Cycle I would like to hear of your experiences with it. Follow the directions (ammonia dosing?, water changes? etc.). & don't change things because you get tired of...whatever. Consistency will help all of us judge a new product's efficacy. Test, keep records & post your results sometimes to keep us in the loop. I don't promise not to be judgmental, sometimes I can't help it, lol, but I do wish you luck!

You can, while waiting for your flooring, cycle a filter on a smaller plastic tub or the tank...just a thought...

 

[francisco9494]

Hey guys! Please check out my Review on API's Quick Start, Stress Zyme, Ammo Lock and Freshwater Master Test Kit! It may help answer any of your questions! Thanks!

 

[TwoTankAmin]

No, API Quick start does not contain the proper bacteria. Read the science. One thing it will show you is there ammonia oxidizers in sw and fw are not the same.

Also I will bet you dollars to donuts that API will not tell us what specific bacteria are in their bottle. The API site even states this:

• Is API QUICK START™ nitrifying bacteria safe for soft coral?
• Yes, API QUICK START nitrifying bacteria is safe for Soft Coral, as it neutralizes chlorine and chloramines in the water.

from https://www.aquariacentral.com/forums/threads/cycling-and-cloudy-water.291163/page-4#post-2976545

I will pay anybody $500 if they can produce any peer reviewed scientific study which indicates that nitrifying bacteria neutralizes chlorine or chloramine. The former may kill it but it takes a number of hours to penetrate the biofilm in which the bacteria live. Chloramine penetrates faster but it doesn't kill them, it essentially puts them to sleep. As long as there is ammonia in the water, they wake back up. I first read the basis for the paper linked below when it was the Ph.D. thesis of Lee, Woo Hyoung. Years later he built upon that in:

	Lee, W. H., Pressman, J. G., & Wahman, D. G. (2018). Three-Dimensional Free Chlorine and Monochloramine Biofilm Penetration: Correlating Penetration with Biofilm Activity and Viability. Environmental science & technology, 52(4), 1889–1898. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b05215

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6056003/

The key to the issue here is simple, do the homework and learn about Nitrobacter wynogradski v.s. Nitrospira ("nitrite oxidation in freshwater aquaria appeared to be mediated by bacteria closely related to Nitrospira moscoviensis and Nitrospira marina" ).
https://aem.asm.org/content/64/1/258.full

I only have 20 years in the hobby and the most tanks I have had running at any one time is only about 26. And then I have only cycled a few 100 tanks or filters over the years. I have not had my bio-farm for cycling and maintaining cycled filters running in a couple of years. So I am still learning on this topic.

Most companies which make sell a broad line of aquarium products feel compelled to offer a cycling product even though existing patents preclude them from containing Nitrospira as the nitrite oxidizer. Caveat Emptor. This doesn't mean they do not make a lot of other good stuff. However, I question their honesty when it comes to this sort of thing.

I have used the API test kits for many years. I do not use products like Stress Zyme or Ammo Lock no matter who makes them. I also have well water and do not use dechlor in my tanks. I do have some for when I bleach plants or when I used to vend or do room sales at weekend events.

 

[the loach]

Most companies which make sell a broad line of aquarium products feel compelled to offer a cycling product even though existing patents preclude them from containing Nitrospira as the nitrite oxidizer

No, a patent prevents nobody from doing anything. It is not an enforced law or regulation. IF you're right, the patent is bunk. The supreme court already dealt with this, in exactly the same case, the only difference the nitrifying bacteria were used for legumes not aquaria.

If you only found an organism, then you CANNOT patent it. It doesn’t matter if you scoured the deepest Amazon jungle to find the rarest of insects – if it’s naturally occurring, then it’s not patentable. The Supreme Court dealt with this in Funk Brothers Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co. where the product was essentially a bacterial culture in powder or liquid form.[2] The Court held that although Kalo had discovered the bacteria and its unique ability to form a nitrogen-fixing association with legumes, the product was not patent eligible because the bacteria were a “phenomenon of nature.”[3] The Court stated that the qualities of the bacteria “are part of the storehouse of knowledge of all men” and “manifestations of laws of nature,” discovery of which is not patentable.[4]

Patentability of Living Organisms: Can a living organism be patented? - IP Wire

Can a living organism be patented? The quick answer is “sometimes.” by: Jake Mace | July 31, 2017 The Supreme Court made it clear that abstract ideas, natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not patentable subject matter.[1] So it really comes down to whether a living organism should be...

ipwire.com

So I am still learning on this topic.

There you go. Anyone can culture bacteria with a fishless cycle, and sell them with or without naming them. Show studies or even a magazine article that the competing products don't work.

 

[fishorama]

There's a big difference between being able to grow the nitrifying bacteria (with ammonia, fish waste, etc.) & selling the same bacteria in a stable identifiable state. It's the difference between 6-8 weeks ammonia cycling & virtual immediate bacteria colonization. The method of identifying & stabilization of this bacteria is what is patented, not the naturally occurring bacteria itself. I think you are misunderstanding or choosing to not get this.

All API is offering is a dechlorinator, & chlorine can kill nitrifying bacteria. So all they're claiming is it "helps" by not killing the beneficial bacteria, not that it contains the correct bacteriae. It sounds to me like they're very careful not to say that...It's not necessary to prove a negative, only a positive result...& Dr. Tim (& Tetra) have shown that positive in their patents. It's up to "other" companies to prove their products also do that & I've never seen anything close to that claim...

Maybe you can show us all that, tl? I'd like to learn on what you're basing your continuing doubt on the validity of Dr. Tim & Tetra's patent. There is no "there you go" in patenting, there's a review board that looks at "claims"...If there were good data there would be counter claims to that effect...but I have yet to see any.

My husband holds (or held, some have expired) 50+ patents. I think "we" may have better understanding of patent law than you might. Have you consulted any patent lawyers for your claims against Dr. Tim & Tetra?

Haven't we been through this topic enough yet?

 

[the loach]

The method of identifying & stabilization of this bacteria is what is patented, not the naturally occurring bacteria itself. I think you are misunderstanding or choosing to not get this.

I can only go by what 2tank claims. First he claimed it was the probe, then that the bacteria itself. I showed both of them do not prevent anyone from selling bacteria. Now you say it is "the method of identifying and stabilization", ok. That is something different again, and 2tank would be wrong with his claims, but sure that can be patented. Still does not prevent anyone from selling or culturing those bacteria. It does not exclude any other methods.

The "identifying" is the same as "the probe argument". Nobody needs to identify the bacteria in their tank, their presence and function can be established by test kits. Stabilization could be patented, if it is a novel production method. The fact that they can go dormant is a "phenomenon of nature" and can not, like the supreme court ruling states.
The patent of a certain production method does not prevent anyone from using other methods that do the same thing. And that is what his whole argument hangs up on and why it fails, it's not that others can't culture/bottle the bacteria, it's that the patent prevents them from doing so, thus all other products can't work. That's a logical fallacy.