Cycling and cloudy water

[TwoTankAmin]

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynihan
"The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it." Neil DeGrasse Tyson

If you do not wish to learn, do the things below:

Do not read any of the research papers. They have facts in them.
Do not read the patent applications, they have the explanations in them.
Do not read the text books on microbiology, they have the science in them.



So how about just a tiny bit of common sense. If what I have been saying about Nitrospira is wrong, then you should be able to find at least one other bacterial starter product on the market (besides SafeStart) which states it contains them. If there is no valid patent, then this should be a simple thing to do.

Here is another way to show that what I have been saying is not the case., Find any published peer reviewed paper written since 1998 which shows that it is something besides Nitrospira like bacteria which oxidize nitrite to nitrate in aquariums.

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

Now lets be fair about this. Yes, Dr. Hovanec sells a bacterial starter product. But his name is one of four on the above paper. Why would respected professional scientists out there put their name on a paper they believed to be false?

Lance T. Taylor https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/9539069-Lance-T-Taylor

Andrew Blakis https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/33289481-Andrew-Blakis

Edward F. Delong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_DeLong

Consider the Ammonia paper:

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

Paul C Burrell https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?cmd=search&term=Burrell PC[au]&dispmax=50

Carol M. Phalen https://www.semanticscholar.org/author/Carol-M.-Phalen/20436685

Hovanec, Timothy & DeLong, E. (1996). Hovanec T, DeLong E.. Comparative analysis of nitrifying bacteria associated with freshwater and marine aquaria. Appl Environ Microbiol 62: 2888-2896. Applied and environmental microbiology. 62. 2888-96. 10.1128/AEM.62.8.2888-2896.199

Edward F. DeLong https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/Edward-F-DeLong-38620444

I, unlike some here, am not perfect. I was incorrect when I said it was only the probes for nitrospira that were patented. I acknowledged that error and corrected myself. However, my mistake did not invalidate the patents' existence nor their effect on what companies can include in their bottles of bacterial starters.

As for patents held by Dr. Hovanec, well..... https://patents.google.com/?inventor=timothy+hovanec&num=100&oq=timothy+hovanec&sort=new
As you will see he has patents not only involving nitrite oxidizers but also for ammonia oxidizers. Do you believe that all of these patents (many of which are also for other countries) are not legal?

I have provided a lot of evidence to support what I say, others have provided no science to counter it. All you need to show I am wrong is science to the contrary. If anybody can provide this, I will be happy to admit I am wrong. It took me a while to accept that there can also be Archaea at work oxidizing ammonia in tanks. This was discovered in about 2005 or 06. It also took me a while to discover the paper which concluded that Nitrospira were able process ammonia straight through to nitrate.

Daims, H., Lebedeva, E., Pjevac, P. et al. Complete nitrification by Nitrospira bacteria.
Nature 528, 504–509 (2015).
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature16461
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5152751/

 

[the loach]

I have provided a lot of evidence to support what I say, others have provided no science to counter it. All you need to show I am wrong is science to the contrary. If anybody can provide this, I will be happy to admit I am wrong.

How would one provide a study or "science" that your logic fails, or that you have a misunderstanding on what a patent is or what it does? I have not disputed any of those studies, cause they are irrelevant. No study prevents anyone from doing anything. All you do is list them over and over again, you might as well cite studies about polar bears, it is moot... it's not a science argument but a legal argument. Your assertion is based on a legal assumption.

Cause your argument is based on the assumption that a patent prevents anyone from selling these bacteria. Again a patent is an exclusionary right, it is not enforced like government laws and regulations. The patent has to be enforced by the owner. I cited an identical supreme court case to show what would happen and why it can't be enforced (if you're right about the patent). How isn't that a fact? You may not like the supreme court ruling but it is there. Not my opinion... the supreme court was very clear in this. It doesn't matter whether Tim "discovered" the bacteria and/or their ability to nitrify. It is literally in there.

If you're wrong, and the patent is as Fish'O says about a certain tool or novel production process, it still doesn't prevent anyone from selling bacteria as they can use other methods. Patenting a "novel production process" means there are alternatives. You can not patent what people have been doing before.

Like the article link I posted above stated there are circumstances in which bacteria can be patented, like 1. the bacteria are in a combination not found in nature 2. the bacteria are modified. But if one or both of those is the case, they do not prevent anyone from selling bacteria that you can just culture by putting ammonia or fish in water.

 

[Sprinkle]

I agree with guys. I would love to throw in my pence here, API stress coat does not relievestress. Maybe it does, but the harmful susbstance to fishes gills is the aloe vera it contains, it will burn their gills. That's what I research and what I was told by my sister before she caused me troubles... ?

 

[TwoTankAmin]

I can find another product besides Dr. Tim's One and Only that states unequivocally it contains Nitrosomonas, Nitrosospira (another ammonia oxidizer) and Nitrospira.

Why SafeStart Plus is better:

• Our patented filter bacteria are proven superior.
• We grow the actual aquatic bacteria that are naturally found in aquariums. We do not use low cost industrial bacteria from terrestrial strains.
• Our concentrated formula adds a full filter bed of bacteria with just one dose.
• Live nitrifying bacteria start working immediately to reduce dangerous ammonia and nitrite.
• Prevents new tank syndrome for healthy fish.
• The patented mix of Nitrosomonas, Nitrosospira, and Nitrospira is proven to work.
• Shelf-stable formula requires no refrigeration for added convenience.

Yellow added by me.
(Oops, this company shares the patents with Dr. Hovanec.)

I am still waiting for anybody who reads this thread to show us any other starter product which states that it contains Nitrospira. If one cannot find a product which contains the specific types of bacteria that the science has unequivocally stated is found in tanks, there must be a good reason. Moreover, if one actually reads the patent applications, they would have seen that part of it states that other bottled products that existed at that time which contained Nitrobacter were also tested during the research for the papers referenced in the patent applications. Once the experimental tanks into which such products were added were cycled, they were tested for what bacteria was in them. No Nitrobacter was found, but lots of Nitrospira was.

I am sure that companies like SeaChem, API, Fluval, Fritz etc. would love to have Nitrospira in their products and to say so. Why don't they do this if they are legally permitted to do so?

As for the studies to which I link. They are the science which deals with the spceific bacteria found to be doing nitrification in aquariums. If one wants to be able to bottle the bacteria which end up there, one needs to identify the specific bacteria. That is the science to which I link. Furthermore, no one can claim to have specific bacteria in their product that are not there.

The nice thing about the scientific method is that it not only allows for, but encourages, challenging current knowledge. When I did my first fishless cycle nobody in the world knew there were Archaea which oxidized ammonia just like the bacteria. There is now a lot of research on those Archaea. When I started in the hobby nobody had any idea that Nitrospira could oxidize ammonia and nitrite and producte nitrate. Now they do. For my part, this is why I believe the research shows that there are way more Nitrospira than Nitrosomonas (ammonia ones) in the biofilm.



A long time ago I came up with the following saying which I modified by changing the word man to person.
What makes the common person uncommon is common sense.

 

[the loach]

I am still waiting for anybody who reads this thread to show us any other starter product which states that it contains Nitrospira.

That is not how it works. You made the claim no other product could contain the right bacteria, cause they were patented.
I told you it is a logical fallacy and showed you the supreme court ruling that you can't patent bacteria or their function (unless they are modified).
You are now moving the goal posts for the third time.

 

[the loach]

If one wants to be able to bottle the bacteria which end up there, one needs to identify the specific bacteria.

No. Just as anyone cycling their tank does not need to identify the bacteria. Their presence can be established by testing for NH4/NO2/NO3 in a tank or in a bottle. That's why I said it is irrelevant which bacteria they are.

I'm not messing with you or trying to disagree just because. Let me offer you two hypothetical cases in which your argument would be right;
1. Nitrifying bacteria are regulated and the FDA has only authorized Tetra to manufacture them, therefore, all other nitrifying bacteria products are fake.
2. These particular nitrifying bacteria are modified to perform better as naturally occurring. They are patented and no other company can culture or sell them.
(ok this one does still not prevent companies from culturing/selling the naturally occurring bacteria, but at least it is an enforceable patent)

 

[TwoTankAmin]

Nope. All anyone out there has to do to support what the loach says is to find another bacterial starter product which states they have the right live bacteria in therm.

Folks cannot do this because what the loach says is wrong. There is nothing to support what the loach says whereas I have produced plenty of evidence that what I am saying is absolutely valid.

Anybody out there could make me look like a fool if they can produce links to recent science which indicates it is not nitrosomonas (or ammonia oxidizing Archaea) nor nitrospira which are in aquariums oxidizing ammonia to nitrite and nitrite to nitrate and what it actually is. it simple, just show us the science that established it is some other microorganisms.

Anybody could make me like like a fool if they could produce another single bacterial starter product for aquarium use in the USA which states that is contains Nitrospira.

And then what about all the patents? They are real and they are not limited to the USA. Other countries gave granted them as well. One can see them all listed here, there are 13 of them and they are from the USA, mexico, Europe and Australia: https://www.drtimsaquatics.com/resources/library/patents/ So who do folks reading this thread think knows more about what can or cannot be patented, the loach or the patent offices of 4 different jurisdictions who granted those 13 patents? And spme of these were renewals or improvements/modifications which supercede earlier patents

Enough double talk. So far nobody in this thread has offered anything at all to support the assertions of the loach or which indicates what I have presented is invalid, outdated, supplanted by new knowledge or outright fiction.

As the saying goes, it's time put up or shut up.

 

[fishorama]

I don't understand all of the chemistry involved, but my husband is a retired organic chemist & does. He said TTA has it right. In fact he called TTA maybe a genius of researching...guess who I believe?

 

[TwoTankAmin]

I can really make it easy. Dr. Hovanec was working with Marineland in the 1990s and he was also working on his Ph.D. The Marineland labs were in Morepark, CA. The first bacterial product the came up with was called Bio-Sprira and was really best for salt water. I have laid out the research timeline earlier in this thread. As it progressed so did the patent applications. Basically, Dr. Hovanec and Marineland shared them.

Then along came the period of consolidation in the pet industry which included fish keeping. Many of the independent companies were bought by conglomerates for their pet divisions. An outfit called Spectrum Brands purchased Jungle, GloFish, Instant Ocean, Tetra, Omega One and Marineland for the Aquatics part of their Global Pet Care division.

Dr. Hovanec did not wish to become a part of this and he decided to start his own business. He ended up doing so in the Marineland Moorepark facility. The result of this is that all of the patents I have referenced in this thread are basically controlled by Dr, Hovanec and Spectrum Brands. Spectrum brands became an assignee when they bought Marineland.

Today there are a number of bacterial products which contain the Nitrosomonas, Nitrosospira and Nitrsopira and will state this.
Dr. Tim' One and Only https://www.drtimsaquatics.com/products/one-and-only-live-nitrifying-bacteria/ and for SW https://store.drtimsaquatics.com/One-Only-Live-Nitrifying-Bacteria_c_7.html
Tetra's SafeStart Plus http://www.tetra-fish.com/products/water-care/safestart-plus.aspx
Instant Ocean's Bio-Spira http://www.instantocean.com/Product...up/bio-spira-saltwater-aquarium-bacteria.aspx
Marineland's Aquarium Bacteria http://www.marineland.com/products/nutrition-and-water-care/aquarium-bacteria.aspx
and Marineland Bio-Spira Freshwater Bacteria

Connet the dots here, it is not difficult.

This stuff is not rocket science. However, you have to be motivated to do the work it takes to discover these things. I spent many hours over a lot of years searching out papers and researching the corporate history and the patents. I actually exchanged emails with Dr. Hovanec. I also did the same with Dr. Tanner of Swiss Tropical whom I have also met and chatted with at couple of weekend fish events (the bi-annual Catfish Convention for example).

Any one of us can sell cycled filters which will contain some of the patented bacteria under discussion. What we cannot do is to state that the cycled filters contain those specific bacteria by name. Do you want to buy such a filter, or just see an example? Angels Plus has been selling them for years.
https://angelsplus.com/products/active-sponge-filter#how-they-work

And lets make this even more fun. If you look at the patent list on Dr. Hovanec's site, you will discover he has patents for the ammonia oxidizers as well as the Nitrospira.

Oh yes, there is one more factor one might want to consider. The bacteria which Dr. Tim patented were not taken from nature. They originated from the filters and/or substrate in cycled aquariums. To know this you would have had to read the research papers or the patent applications I linked.

 

[the loach]

I don't understand all of the chemistry involved, but my husband is a retired organic chemist & does. He said TTA has it right. In fact he called TTA maybe a genius of researching...guess who I believe?

Right about what exactly? How can he be more right as the supreme court?

Oh yes, there is one more factor one might want to consider. The bacteria which Dr. Tim patented were not taken from nature. They originated from the filters and/or substrate in cycled aquariums. To know this you would have had to read the research papers or the patent applications I linked.

Wrong: these bacteria are "a product of nature" if unmodified. It does not matter if he found them in his laboratory, or in an aquarium:

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

Nope. All anyone out there has to do to support what the loach says is to find another bacterial starter product which states they have the right live bacteria in therm.

That is not how it works. You make the claim, you provide reason, logic and evidence, not the other party. You kept changing the answer until now you provide a question as evidence for your claim. That is what conspiracy theorists also do.

Fish species in the pet trade are sold without scientific name, or with the wrong one. Nobody cares about that, why do you think people would care more about bacteria? Nobody cares except for a hand full of elitists. And again, you can not provide proof not in logic or science that you are right by asking a question. Your assertion is not based on science but on a patent. No science or study does prevent anyone from selling something. The FDA for example can, but the patent office can't.

Folks cannot do this because what the loach says is wrong. There is nothing to support what the loach says whereas I have produced plenty of evidence that what I am saying is absolutely valid.

I am wrong for showing the supreme court ruling that bacteria or their function can't be patented?

Your 'evidence' is moot cause your reasoning is flawed. Your argument is hold up solely that a patent prevents others from doing so, which I shown to be not true. It is really simple, and everyone can see it for themselves;

The patent is not enforceable cause the bacteria are not eligible to be patented, as ruled by the supreme court in an identical case

What Cannot Be Patented

You can patent pretty much anything made by man except laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas. Learn more about patents here.

www.legalmatch.com

You can not patent something that already exists, or people were already doing or using. I hope this simple truth to be self evident for everyone, but you can verify it on about every web page about patents.
The bacteria already existed and were cultured in aquaria before they and their function were "discovered". You can patent something that enhances production or quality, but you can not enforce a patent for something that was already happening. Patenting something that increases production or makes it more economic, does not prevent others from using other methods.

You got to argue these points instead as bringing up irrelevant studies as facts, but I see you want your assertion to be true rather as learn it is incorrect.