Does Bio-Spira Work?

[H3D]

It would be easy enough to set up several empty 10 gallon tanks and plot the progress of a cycle using different products and a known amount of ammonia. After the 100th thread like this I am suprised it hasn't happened yet. I would be willing to chip in a few bucks to whoever set something like this up, it would save me and everyone else from buying worthless or gimmicky chemicals.

Why waste time and money when the scientific finding of The University of California found that nitrobacter is not the bacteria responsible for nitrifiction in an aquarium.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=124703

 

[H3D]

Here is a site with some good information about nitrospira; the nitrifiying bacteria found in Bio-Spira.

http://microbewiki.kenyon.edu/index.php/Nitrospira

 

[ErrorS]

because it's a single study .. ? Most people aren't goign to say "oh well, one study done.. I guess it means it's definitely true"

remember, I couldn't care less about bacteria additives.. but common sense would tell you to not blindly follow a study done by a single University. I'm sure they're right! but MANY scientific studies have been either proved false or in error.. that's why these studies are done over and over.

The people might have gotten a bad batch of Nitrobacter (even after a dosing they show no levels of nitrobacter).. or simply, they were paid by someone to come to these conclusions. It has been known to happen..

I want to make it clear, I'm not discounting this study.. I'm just saying that a single study done by a single group of people should never ever be viewed as 'definitely fact!', they make mistakes, they can be corrupted and it's not all that uncommon..
though, I'll admit it's a stretch thinking someone who cultures bacteria for aquariums would pay a university to falsify data.

Edit: See, people should do reading. It took me a while to find it but I found a few sources that really dive deep into the specifics of each of these types of bacteria. Nitrobacter reproduces slightly slower than Nitrospira.. it's more sensitive to salinity and temperature changes and prefers a low PH. Nitrospria reproduces better in a high alkaline enviroment but requires much more oxygen in the water.. Nitrobacter does well in very low oxygen enviroments like substrates in an aquarium.

Nitrobacter also requires phosphates in the water. If these studies (didn't read through it all) used purified water with ammonia added, didn't take into account optimum PH levels, etc.. no wonder they had no Nitrobacter in the end. Did they test water from different sources? DId they take samples from a deep gravel bed?

Samples taken from lakes show a much higher Nitrobacter concentration in the soil than Nitrospiras, with more Nitrospira in the water column and Nitrobacter is found more often in softer waters found in the southern hemisphere. If what I'm reading is right, those of us with planted aquariums might benefit from having Nitrobacter in our tanks, as it will thrive in some of our densly packed, hardly disturbed, sometimes low oxygenated substrate beds.

I maybe read through 100 different links on the subject and I'm not linking every single one of them, you're all just as capable of googling as I did, try typing in "Nitrobacter" into google, by itself, ignoring information dealing with aquariums (which are all based off of this university of california paper it seems, marineland has an article about it on their page ;D)

 

[don_juan]

the more and more i read your posts, the more i think that you are a person that works for the people who make SuperBac. yes, i have used it. it worked for 3 days and the bacteria died and i was stuck with an even bigger mess than before. thats why i tried stress zyme (way back when in my newbie days).

we've got the info speaking against it but you insist that it works. just because it "worked" for you doesnt mean it worked for anyone else. so far, im pretty sure that i have been the only one here with a good experience with stress zyme, and i am fine with that.



look at it like this. its like a car. just because you get a Dodge that runs great for 20 years doesnt mean that i didnt get one that ran for three before i had to scrap it because it was in the shop every other day.

Soooooo you don't know the properties in the bottle.

Gotchya.

 

[H3D]

See, people should do reading. It took me a while to find it but I found a few sources that really dive deep into the specifics of each of these types of bacteria. Nitrobacter reproduces slightly slower than Nitrospira.. it's more sensitive to salinity and temperature changes and prefers a low PH. Nitrospria reproduces better in a high alkaline enviroment but requires much more oxygen in the water.. Nitrobacter does well in very low oxygen enviroments like substrates in an aquarium.

Nitrobacter also requires phosphates in the water. If these studies (didn't read through it all) used purified water with ammonia added, didn't take into account optimum PH levels, etc.. no wonder they had no Nitrobacter in the end. Did they test water from different sources? DId they take samples from a deep gravel bed?

Samples taken from lakes show a much higher Nitrobacter concentration in the soil than Nitrospiras, with more Nitrospira in the water column and Nitrobacter is found more often in softer waters found in the southern hemisphere. If what I'm reading is right, those of us with planted aquariums might benefit from having Nitrobacter in our tanks, as it will thrive in some of our densly packed, hardly disturbed, sometimes low oxygenated substrate beds.

I have read most of the articles you are referring to but have come to different conclusions. No one has discounted the existence nitrobacter inside of an aquarium; just the effectiveness. One thing you do not seem to be taking in to account is the notion that in a typical aquarium setup the majority of the nitrifying bacteria colonies would be found on bio-material inside of the filter; not on the substrate. These bio-materials are purposely placed in high oxygen environment to facilitate the growth of nitrospira. That is why this is a aquarium specific issue, because most aquariums differ greatly from a natural body of water.

 

[H3D]

Soooooo you don't know the properties in the bottle.

Gotchya.

:read: Principle ingredients: water, nitrosomonas, and nitrobacter.

 

[Carlotta]

On "Science"

Why waste time and money when the scientific finding of The University of California found that nitrobacter is not the bacteria responsible for nitrifiction in an aquarium.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=124703

Because, as everyone should know, "scientific findings" are just what whoever ran the study "found." Just because something has the name "scientific" or "University of >>>fill in the blank<<<" on it does not mean it's the gospel, correct, or even the whole story. Whenever anything with the word "official" on it finds it's way into our hands, it should not automatically be considered the last word - or even all the words. Like, the "official" word that red meat is a good source of protien and is good for humans, when nothing could be further from the truth. It's a very poor source of protien builders, it taxes virtually all of our digestive organs and systems, our immune systems, and collects and putrifies in our gut introducing a steady stream of toxins into our blood and tissues.

"Science" is not exact, and it's findings are very often flawed, and contantly being "updated."

Do you know who ordered the U of C study, and for what purpose?

If we have not used a new product, we truly are not in any position to voice an opinion about it one way or the other.

~Carlotta

 

[H3D]

Because, as everyone should know, "scientific findings" are just what whoever ran the study "found." Just because something has the name "scientific" or "University of >>>fill in the blank<<<" on it does not mean it's the gospel, correct, or even the whole story. Whenever anything with the word "official" on it finds it's way into our hands, it should not automatically be considered the last word - or even all the words. "Science" is not exact, and it's findings are very often flawed, and contantly being "updated." Do you know who ordered the U of C study, and for what purpose?

http://www.aquamaniacs.net/forum/cms_view_article.php?aid=36

If we have not used a new product, we truly are not in any position to voice an opinion about it one way or the other. ~Carlotta

I have tried products with the same ingredients and they did not work for me.

 

[Mgamer20o0]

i really think the point of this topic was to find out what people used and how well it worked. if you want to fight about it i think http://www.aquariacentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90969&page=7 here is a good place to do it. vote what you used post what it didn and how it did for you and move on.

Because, as everyone should know, "scientific findings" are just what whoever ran the study "found." Just because something has the name "scientific" or "University of >>>fill in the blank<<<" on it does not mean it's the gospel, correct, or even the whole story. Whenever anything with the word "official" on it finds it's way into our hands, it should not automatically be considered the last word - or even all the words. Like, the "official" word that red meat is a good source of protien and is good for humans, when nothing could be further from the truth. It's a very poor source of protien builders, it taxes virtually all of our digestive organs and systems, our immune systems, and collects and putrifies in our gut introducing a steady stream of toxins into our blood and tissues.

"Science" is not exact, and it's findings are very often flawed, and contantly being "updated."

Do you know who ordered the U of C study, and for what purpose?

If we have not used a new product, we truly are not in any position to voice an opinion about it one way or the other.

~Carlotta

because it's a single study .. ? Most people aren't goign to say "oh well, one study done.. I guess it means it's definitely true"

remember, I couldn't care less about bacteria additives.. but common sense would tell you to not blindly follow a study done by a single University. I'm sure they're right! but MANY scientific studies have been either proved false or in error.. that's why these studies are done over and over.

The people might have gotten a bad batch of Nitrobacter (even after a dosing they show no levels of nitrobacter).. or simply, they were paid by someone to come to these conclusions. It has been known to happen..

I want to make it clear, I'm not discounting this study.. I'm just saying that a single study done by a single group of people should never ever be viewed as 'definitely fact!', they make mistakes, they can be corrupted and it's not all that uncommon..
though, I'll admit it's a stretch thinking someone who cultures bacteria for aquariums would pay a university to falsify data.

Edit: See, people should do reading. It took me a while to find it but I found a few sources that really dive deep into the specifics of each of these types of bacteria. Nitrobacter reproduces slightly slower than Nitrospira.. it's more sensitive to salinity and temperature changes and prefers a low PH. Nitrospria reproduces better in a high alkaline enviroment but requires much more oxygen in the water.. Nitrobacter does well in very low oxygen enviroments like substrates in an aquarium.

Nitrobacter also requires phosphates in the water. If these studies (didn't read through it all) used purified water with ammonia added, didn't take into account optimum PH levels, etc.. no wonder they had no Nitrobacter in the end. Did they test water from different sources? DId they take samples from a deep gravel bed?

Samples taken from lakes show a much higher Nitrobacter concentration in the soil than Nitrospiras, with more Nitrospira in the water column and Nitrobacter is found more often in softer waters found in the southern hemisphere. If what I'm reading is right, those of us with planted aquariums might benefit from having Nitrobacter in our tanks, as it will thrive in some of our densly packed, hardly disturbed, sometimes low oxygenated substrate beds.

I maybe read through 100 different links on the subject and I'm not linking every single one of them, you're all just as capable of googling as I did, try typing in "Nitrobacter" into google, by itself, ignoring information dealing with aquariums (which are all based off of this university of california paper it seems, marineland has an article about it on their page ;D)

Soooooo you don't know the properties in the bottle.

Gotchya.

 

[jm1212]

Soooooo you don't know the properties in the bottle.

Gotchya.

water, nitrobactors, and other chemicals

even then; i used it, and i used most of it and it didnt work so i threw it away. im not going to sit there and read the ingredients of every single thing i have just so i can report them.