Cycling and cloudy water

  • Get the NEW AquariaCentral iOS app --> http://itunes.apple.com/app/id1227181058 // Android version will be out soon!

the loach

AC Members
Aug 6, 2018
1,407
678
120
Did you come up with this assertion yourself or are you relating a sales pitch someone at Dr Tim or Tetra told you?

Either way it is completely false, the patent you quoted is just about a probe, which does not exclude anyone from manufacturing nitrifying bacteria. A patent is an exclusionary legal right for a particular invention or new method for an existing invention (the patent might be based on other patents even) it does not prevent anyone from using another method, and it does not even mean the patent is the best method (this would be of course impossible for the USPTO, or anyone to know). It is solely about using or selling (but only in the country it was patented in) that particular probe.
Nitrifying bacteria form no spores but this argument is moot as the bottled bacteria are brought in a dormant state.

Think about it; anyone at home can culture these bacteria with a fishless cycle or a fish in cycle, but it would be impossible for a company to grow them in bottles? Nobody needs a probe for that. It may or may not be handy but I can think of several other methods to do it.
 
Last edited:

Sprinkle

AC Members
Mar 21, 2020
681
119
46
UK
Camera Used
My iPad
Think about it; anyone at home can culture these bacteria with a fishless cycle or a fish in cycle, but it would be impossible for a company to grow them in bottles? Nobody needs a probe for that. It may or may not be handy but I can think of several other methods to do it.
If that's to TTA, I'm not gonna involve in this, but just gonna say I'd trust him.
Maybe my Tetra Safe Start didn't actually cycle my tank, but I have done that wrong. I should have done like my lfs did, put the liquid near the filter to let as much as possible of the bacteria to go inside it and multiply.

But I will agree with you on culturing bacteria ourselves, but some people prefer to use liquid ones and that's fine.
 

the loach

AC Members
Aug 6, 2018
1,407
678
120
I never said Safe start couldn't cycle a (your?) tank or it is a bad product or something. Just that his argument that only Safestart can possibly have the right bacteria because it has a patented probe, is a logical fallacy. Anyone can culture those bacteria, without said probe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sprinkle

Sprinkle

AC Members
Mar 21, 2020
681
119
46
UK
Camera Used
My iPad
I never said Safe start couldn't cycle a (your?) tank or it is a bad product or something. Just that his argument that only Safestart can possibly have the right bacteria because it has a patented probe, is a logical fallacy. Anyone can culture those bacteria, without said probe.
I know ^^ But I just had to say what I said lol
 
Apr 2, 2002
2,566
212
66
New York
OK. let's get down to the nitty gritty. I will try to keep it simple.

When we squeeze out media, to cycle a new tank, we are spreading Nitrospira around. We know we are doing this because we know Nitrospira are present from all the research showing it. What we cannot do is prove this without the probes needed. Nor can we bottle this stuff and sell it with the claim it is Nitrospira.

Both the probes and the bacteria are covered by a number of patents worldwide. I will keep things simple, lets talk about the primary one in the Unites States.


US7544501B2
United States

Nitrite-oxidizing bacteria and methods of using and detecting the same

Inventor Timothy A. Hovanec Carol M. Phalen
Current Assignee United Pet Group Inc, Bank of New York Mellon Corp

FIELD OF THE INVENTION
The invention relates generally to nitrite oxidizers and specifically to bacteria capable of oxidizing nitrite to nitrate.

This patent has two Classifications:

C12R1/01- Processes using microorganisms using bacteria or actinomycetales

C12N1/20- Bacteria; Culture media therefor
Media compositions for bacteria, compositions comprising bacteria (with or without other compounds), processes of isolating, maintaining or propagating bacteria.



Now, would you prefer to read the entire filing as an HTML or to download it as a PDF? (I think I first read it about 8-10 years ago.)

https://patents.google.com/patent/US7544501B2/en?inventor=T+Hovanec&oq=T+Hovanec

https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/75/88/f9/de76c9cb0a3a75/US7544501.pdf

And this is why Nitrospira and the probes for it are covered by a patent which has an adjusted expiration date of 2024-03-12.

I do not make this stuff up. Moreover, I have no connection to Dr. Hovanec, to Marineland , to Tetra or to any other person, organization or corporation involved with the patent or the products. I live from investement income and I have no direct ownership in any public or private entity connected with the patent or products. What I am is smart enough to do my own research.

[TTA drops the mike ]


Nitrospira-Like Bacteria Associated with Nitrite Oxidation in Freshwater Aquaria
Timothy A. Hovanec, Lance T. Taylor, Andrew Blakis, Edward F. Delong
Applied and Environmental Microbiology Jan 1998, 64 (1) 258-264; DOI: 10.1128/AEM.64.1.258-264.1998
https://aem.asm.org/content/64/1/258.full

When the above paper was published I had not even entered this hobby. When the paper below was published, I was 2 months short of completing my first year in the hobby. (I did not make up any part of these papers either.)

Identification of Bacteria Responsible for Ammonia Oxidation in Freshwater Aquaria
Paul C. Burrell, Carol M. Phalen, Timothy A. Hovanec
Applied and Environmental Microbiology Dec 2001, 67 (12) 5791-5800; DOI: 10.1128/AEM.67.12.5791-5800.2001
https://aem.asm.org/content/67/12/5791.full
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sprinkle

the loach

AC Members
Aug 6, 2018
1,407
678
120
That is not the same as you argued previously:

Next, it is not the nitrite oxidizing Nitrospira which are patented, it is the probes which are required to detect them. And yes , I have read the patent filing as well as this paper. You can read the entire Patent filing here: Method for detecting bacterial nitrite oxidizer
So what is it, did they patent already existing bacteria, bred their own strain, or is it just the detection probe?
It is impossible for other nitrifying bacteria to exist, and bottle?
Why can't a bottle be labeled as just nitrifying bacteria?
Are people on this forum infringing on a patent, when they cycle their tank?

Again, I don't think you have a connection with the product. But it could just be that you were relating it because it was in some promotional text. It sounds like a typical sales pitch, "only our product is real, the competition is crap, we have a patent".
 
Apr 2, 2002
2,566
212
66
New York
I do not simply believe what I am told in advertising. I have to be able to prove it from independant soruces with no "axe to grind." Why do you think I knew about all those research papers I like to reference (I have about 175 bookmarked)? Why do you think I knew about the patents? The only thing I sell to help pay my hobby costs are the B&W Hypancistrus plecos which spawn in my tanks- zebras, L236. L173b, L173, contradens and L450. I occasionally may sell excess plants. If I recommend a product it is because I have researched it and then likely used it for a number of years.

T the loach If you want to know exactly what they patented here is a novel idea, read the patent filing. It may be an easier read to go over the initial patent from which the above patent descended. You can read that one here

The patent above descended from this one which is expired and has been replaced https://patents.google.com/patent/US6207440B1/en?inventor=t.+Hovanec&country=US
US6207440B1
Bacterial nitrite oxidizer

I apologize re forgetting that the bacteria themselves were also patented. It was so long long ago that I read the original patent. What stuck in my mind was that in order to do the research into Nitrospira, they had to create probes to detect them. However, everything else I have stated about the effects of that patent is 100% true. The dominant nitrite oxidizing bacteria in a cycled tank are the Nitrospira. That being the case, any bacterial starter product that does not contain live Nitrospira, whether dormant or not, does not contain the bacteria that science knows will be there in the end when a tank is cycled. The patent I initially quoted covers more than the probe and the bacteria. "The present invention also includes polymerase chain reaction (PCR) primers that may be used to detect the bacteria and nucleic acid sequences of the present invention." In the end, all that matters is there is a patent which prohibits others from selling bacterial starters which contain Nitrospira.

Moreover, this being the case, one would expect that any effective bacterial starter would contain these very bacteria. Some of the competitor's products should contain Nitrospira unless there was a reason they could not. If one does research into as many of the bacterial starter products out there as they can, surely one should find some starters besides One and Only and SafeStart that have Nitrospira in them. Good luck with this. ;)

I will also stress again that there is science which deals with a ton of the topics that are at work in tanks. The reason I know this is that I am both a curious person and a doubting Thomas. During ,y initial 5 or so years in this hobby I basically accepted all the "urban aquarium myths" out there. How many times has one read the nitrifying bacteria die at 10% a day with no ammonia? Or that any time one sees any level of Total Ammonia in any tank requires a big water change. The same is true for nitrite. When I found the science my beliefs changed. Facts matter.

Where the science brought me in the hobby was a different place than I had ever imagined. Water chemistry mattered when I finally jumped into trying to keep wild Altum angels. I needed to bring them into a tank with a pH close to 4.0, with very soft water, 30 ppm or less TDS. I also needed to start them off in an environment free of the typical diseases most fish in tanks fight off. I had to become pretty adept at water chemistry and for that I needed science.

Here is an interesting fact one can extract from the patents I listed. One of the things they did was to test other bacterial starters. They name two as being Cycle© and STRESSZYME. I think a third product not specifically named was also included (I did not double check and may be wrong). Those products contain Nitrobacter rather than Nitrospira. When the tanks involved were all cycled they had Nitrospira not Nitrobacter doing the heavy lifting re nitrite oxidation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sprinkle

Sprinkle

AC Members
Mar 21, 2020
681
119
46
UK
Camera Used
My iPad
I still take TTA's side here. I, personally, don't like you guys fighting :(
 

the loach

AC Members
Aug 6, 2018
1,407
678
120
Unfortunately you weren't able to answer my questions. I have no time right now to study the patent, but if you are right this shouldn't be possible and we must reject the products because it is unethical and immoral to patent organisms. It shouldn't even be possible legally:

What can't be patented: https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/what-cant-be-patented.html
What Is Physical Phenomena?
Patent law classifies physical phenomena as products of nature. Thus, if your invention occurs in nature, it is a physical phenomenon and cannot be patented.

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 species of mouse that you find running around your laboratory
  • You can patent a genetically engineered mouse that you designed for use in cancer research
  • 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
Clearly, the nitrifying bacteria existed and were doing their thing before they were "discovered". They exist in nature as well in tanks. Nothing special is needed to culture them. It would be possible to patent genetically modified bacteria. While there is a lot of conjecture in your argument, I don't discount the fact that you could be right, because things that should not be possible do happen sometimes when evil is involved. Both the persons that patented it as well as the persons that accepted it are evil people, and you can't trust those with anything. The products or patents of these people should not be endorsed or recommended.
Either way the patenting of existing bacteria won't hold up in court, and won't hold other companies from selling already existing bacteria.
 
Apr 2, 2002
2,566
212
66
New York
Tell it to the Patent office. They granted multiple patents. I guess you should be running the patent office. These patents have existed for many years and been renewed and expanded. The science re the bacteria is universal. So SeaChem knows about Nitrospira, and so does Fluval and all the rest as well. This is not a secret. Yet none of them have Nitrospira in their product. I wonder why not? DOH!

I really think the time has come to stop shooting yourself in the foot. Everything I have posted is factual. The peer reviewed research, the papers and the patents.

So now the world is evil. Dr. Hovanec and the other researchers named on the papers/patents are evil, Marineland is evil, Tetra is evil, the US Patent office is evil. Maybe I am evil too? You are starting to make yourself look really foolish now. I think I had best stop trying to educate you and let you spout all the nonsense you want without comment. Anybody paying attention to this thread will not have any difficulty realizing where the facts are and where the nonsense is. Hopefully, they also know who may or may not have decent information.

To those reading this thread I apologize for getting overly technical. However, I have a thing about bad information being posted. I feel compelled to correct it. But there is something to learn here. Never blindly trust what anybody posts on this or any other site. Trust the science, it is out there and if you are curious enough you can find it. In this respect Google is not your friend, but Google Scholar is. https://scholar.google.com/ and sometimes so is Google Patent https://patents.google.com/

To the OP: if you want to cycle your tank fast using a product, then use one of the two I have recommended from the get go. If you want more problems, pick anything but those two. The other option is to seed with filter media, or rinse out the media and use that sludge, use substrate. However, these are less precise and you will have to do some level of fishless cycling to get the tank ready.

I will leave you all with this tune so than I leave this thread on a good note.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Sprinkle
zoomed.com
hikariusa.com
aqaimports.com
Store