Using Prime while cycling your tank

[Masha]

I'm not asking this for myself, as my tanks are both cycled, but I like helping people here who are struggling with cycling, and I want to make sure my advice is correct.

I always thought that dechlorinators like Prime convert ammonia to ammonium. Ammonium is not as toxic to fish, but it still feeds the nitrosomona bacteria that does the ammonia > nitrite conversion. In other words, as long as you don't overdose, treating tank water with Prime while you are establishing the nitrogen cycle should not cause any problems.

But I've seen a number of people contradict this, on this and in other forums. They say that you should be cautious of doing water changes while cycling a tank, because of the necessity of dechlorinating that water, and Prime, by binding the ammonia, will slow down the growth of enough bacteria. I've so far not found any articles that support this, just forum posts that I suppose must be based on personal experience.

All the articles I find says the opposite, that using Prime during a cycle is fine. But maybe I'm looking in the wrong places.

Is this true? Is it a bad idea to do big water changes during a cycle for this reason? Because Prime interferes with the bacteria's ability to process that ammonia?

 

[Mebbid]

Always always check the source of your research. If you find no article to contradict information and instead find it being passed on by word of mouth that its almost certainly false information.

Another big one that kills information is the fact that correlation does not imply causation. Someone will cycle a tank for a month and a half before getting told to stop doing water changes then miraculously the tank is cycled within another week or two. Most of the time its believed that the cessation of the water changes are the entire reason the tank is cycled now and not the previous month or more spent cycling.

Prime doesn't effect cycling time.

 

[BBradbury]

Cycling a Tank w/ Fish

Hello Mash...

There are two keys to fish in tank cycling. Using hardy fish is one. Fish like Danios and Platys easily tolerate poorer water conditions. Which is what you have during the nitrogen cycle. The other key is smaller water changes. Removing and replacing 25 percent of the tank water when you have a positive test for ammonia or nitrite, will get the water chemistry back into the "safe zone" for the hardy fish and leave enough nitrogen to feed the growing bacteria that will eventually help maintain purer water conditions for the sensitive fish you may choose after the tank is cycled.

Other than the standard water treatment to remove chlorine and chloramine, there's nothing else you need to add to the water during the cycling process.

B

 

[PNWaquarist]

Prime doesn't effect cycling time.

That's what Seachem claims. Tim Hovanic of DrTim's Aquatics claims that ammonia-binders will slow the cycle process when used with his nitrospira-containing bacteria.

It seems that the best strategy is to try to avoid water changes until the tank is cycled. This is best achieved by conservative dosing of ammonia (I would use 3 ppm instead of 4 ppm, for example). Of course, that's often easier said than done. If you do encounter a huge nitrite spike that lingers, the worst-case scenario at that point is that Prime slows the cycle for a couple of days. Not a big deal.

 

[Mebbid]

That's what Seachem claims. Tim Hovanic of DrTim's Aquatics claims that ammonia-binders will slow the cycle process when used with his nitrospira-containing bacteria.

It seems that the best strategy is to try to avoid water changes until the tank is cycled. This is best achieved by conservative dosing of ammonia (I would use 3 ppm instead of 4 ppm, for example). Of course, that's often easier said than done. If you do encounter a huge nitrite spike that lingers, the worst-case scenario at that point is that Prime slows the cycle for a couple of days. Not a big deal.

Dr. Tim's also says that ammonia and nitrite levels greater than 5ppm stall the cycle. However, scientific tests have ruled neither of those as causing a cessation or slowing of biological activity. Claims by vendors generally aren't the best source for scientific information.

In any case, the use of any sort of ammonia binding chemical in a tank generally revolves around fish in cycling; which the absolute last thing you should do is to allow fish to suffer in higher levels of ammonia because you're afraid of changing the water due to slowing down the cycle.

 

[PNWaquarist]

Dr. Tim's also says that ammonia and nitrite levels greater than 5ppm stall the cycle. However, scientific tests have ruled neither of those as causing a cessation or slowing of biological activity. Claims by vendors generally aren't the best source for scientific information.

Except when the vendor is a Ph.D. whose work has been scientifically scrutinized prior to publication in peer-reviewed microbiology journals.

http://aem.asm.org/content/62/8/2888.full.pdf

http://aem.asm.org/content/64/1/258.full

In any case, the use of any sort of ammonia binding chemical in a tank generally revolves around fish in cycling; which the absolute last thing you should do is to allow fish to suffer in higher levels of ammonia because you're afraid of changing the water due to slowing down the cycle.

Well, yes, if you're doing a FISH-IN cycle, you have no choice. Many folks who post here have been doing water changes during FISHLESS cycles. In that case, you don't want to do water changes unless you've made a boo-boo.

 

[Mebbid]

Except when the vendor is a Ph.D. whose work has been scientifically-scrutinized prior to publication in peer-reviewed microbiology journals.

http://aem.asm.org/content/62/8/2888.full.pdf

Nitrospira-Like Bacteria Associated with Nitrite Oxidation in Freshwater Aquaria



Well, yes, if you're doing a FISH-IN cycle, you have no choice. Many folks who post here have been doing water changes during FISHLESS cycles. In that case, you don't want to do water changes unless you've made a boo-boo.

Yes, he is published in scientific journals specific to bacteria that he's using in his products. It's the primary reason his product is the only one I would bother with when using bottled bacteria. However, his scientific paper has nothing to do with bacterial growth and ammonia binders. The funny thing about scientific papers is the specificity of what they are writing about.

Until I see peer reviewed information on a topic, my belief of nearly any statement is suspect at best. His following along with common beliefs of aquarists in the stalling of a cycle from rising levels of ammonia and nitrite are direct evidence of that. I've seen a few different scientific papers that directly contradict that information. This puts a lot of information he regurgitates into a skeptical light as he's obviously not gone far enough to test it himself. He would have written a scientific paper on it if he had.

 

[PNWaquarist]

Yes, he is published in scientific journals specific to bacteria that he's using in his products. It's the primary reason his product is the only one I would bother with when using bottled bacteria. However, his scientific paper has nothing to do with bacterial growth and ammonia binders. The funny thing about scientific papers is the specificity of what they are writing about.

Then I would not casually throw around statements such as...

Claims by vendors generally aren't the best source for scientific information.

Some of these vendors are actual scientists who are very serious about the quality of their products. If you want to believe that he's scientifically lazy regarding the ammonia and nitrite stalling cycles, that's your prerogative. My guess is that he made that claim based on his own observations (his motivation is obviously not to sell more ammonium chloride solution). If there has been subsequent scientific evidence contradicting his statements then, well, that's science. Scientific claims are called into question in light of new evidence all of the time. It's also possible that Dr. Tim's particular strains of bacteria experience a differing degree of nitrogen bioavailability than those being tested in the journal articles that you speak of.

 

[DeirdreHoyle]

Then I would not casually throw around statements such as...

Some of these vendors are actual scientists who are very serious about the quality of their products. If you want to believe that he's scientifically lazy regarding the ammonia and nitrite stalling cycles, that's your prerogative. My guess is that he made that claim based on his own observations (his motivation is obviously not to sell more ammonium chloride solution). If there has been subsequent scientific evidence contradicting his statements then, well, that's science. Scientific claims are called into question in light of new evidence all of the time. It's also possible that Dr. Tim's particular strains of bacteria experience a differing degree of nitrogen bioavailability than those being tested in the journal articles that you speak of.

That's why Mebbid said "generally". Dr. Tim is probably the exception, not the rule.

 

[Mebbid]

Then I would not casually throw around statements such as...

Why shouldn't I throw around statements doubting the validity of what vendors are telling us? It's our job as aquarists of this day and age to look at information that's given to us in a skeptical light. If we blindly accept random information with no legitimate research behind it then we are setting ourselves up for a ton of problems.

There have been advertisements on this very website toting products that claim to make it so you only have to do a yearly water change. Looking into the products they seem to have a very reasonable scientific backing to them with a well written paper. However delving deeper into the specifics of their research you start to find gaps and holes in their logic.

My guess is that he made that claim based on his own observations (his motivation is obviously not to sell more ammonium chloride solution).

This is EXACTLY the problem I am arguing about. Assuming a person is correct just because they seem to know what they are talking about. Your "guess" as to his statement on things is just a guess. His statement was made without any scientific reasoning or backing. This is a PRIME example of what people do on a daily basis on forums which is regurgitating information they have heard.

That's why Mebbid said "generally". Dr. Tim is probably the exception, not the rule.

I have all the faith in the world of Dr. Tim's one and only. Like I said previously, it's the only bottled bacteria I would trust. However, Dr. Tim is not immune to regurgitating information that is commonly passed around. Is it feasible that he says things that are commonly accepted in aquaria without research backing it to make him appear more credible in the eyes of aquarists? After all, this information isn't specifically hurting anything or causing any stock loss.



All of this boils down to "ammonia binding chemicals and their speed of absorption"

Going into detail of how ammonia / ammonium reacts into the aquarium: Ammonia and ammonium are in constant flux. These depend specifically on both the temperature and pH. The lower the temperature and pH the higher the concentration of ammonium and the opposite is true of high pH and high temperature. If there was a difference specifically in the amount of time it took to use ammonia vs ammonium we would see a disparity in the cycling speed of higher pH tanks up around 8.0pH versus tanks that sit around 7.0pH. We potentially would also see ammonia spikes arising from changing the water directly related to decreased speeds of consumption of ammonia and seeing different rates of ammonia consumption throughout the day.

 

[PNWaquarist]

This is EXACTLY the problem I am arguing about. Assuming a person is correct just because they seem to know what they are talking about. Your "guess" as to his statement on things is just a guess. His statement was made without any scientific reasoning or backing. This is a PRIME example of what people do on a daily basis on forums which is regurgitating information they have heard.

And I should assume that you're correct because...? What are your credentials? What can you tell us about these scientific studies that you've read? Do they use the same species/strain of bacteria as Dr. Tim? Are the experimental conditions similar to what the nitrifying bacteria experience on the surface of the filter media in an aquarium?

However, Dr. Tim is not immune to regurgitating information that is commonly passed around. Is it feasible that he says things that are commonly accepted in aquaria without research backing it to make him appear more credible in the eyes of aquarists?

Sure, it's feasible. It's also feasible that his statements are based on his own observations about his own particular strains of bacteria. What incentive does he have to tell people to use less of a product (ammonium chloride) that he sells?

Don't automatically write off his opinion because he hasn't published a detailed study about the effect of ammonia/nitrite concentration on bacteria growth rates. He's not in graduate school anymore. He owns a successful business that probably occupies 60+ hours of his week. What incentive does he have to further publish at this point?

All of this boils down to "ammonia binding chemicals and their speed of absorption"

Going into detail of how ammonia / ammonium reacts into the aquarium: Ammonia and ammonium are in constant flux. These depend specifically on both the temperature and pH. The lower the temperature and pH the higher the concentration of ammonium and the opposite is true of high pH and high temperature. If there was a difference specifically in the amount of time it took to use ammonia vs ammonium we would see a disparity in the cycling speed of higher pH tanks up around 8.0pH versus tanks that sit around 7.0pH. We potentially would also see ammonia spikes arising from changing the water directly related to decreased speeds of consumption of ammonia and seeing different rates of ammonia consumption throughout the day.

I'm well-versed in Bronsted acid/base equilibrium, thank you. The difference between ammonia and ammonium is a proton, which can easily be plucked off inside of a cell, where the chemical environment, pH, redox potential, and other parameters are usually VASTLY different than tank conditions. This is likely why there is little difference in cycling time at pH 7 vs. pH 8.

I have no idea why you're talking about ammonium, as Prime temporarily converts ammonia to an imidium complex.

The active ingredient in Prime binds to ammonia creating an imidium salt.

http://www.seachem-labs.com/support/forums/showthread.php?p=6917

And while I know only a little about bacterial metabolism, I do know that getting ammonia out of an imidium complex is a kinetically more complex process than a one-step deprotonation of ammonium (the latter process is a rapid equilibrium, proceeding near the diffusion limit). At the easiest, getting ammonia out of an imide is probably a hydrolysis that requires an enzyme. If multiple covalent bonds need to be broken, it'll likely have to be oxidatively metabolized, which requires more energy and will likely take more time. Given that, it's at least scientifically feasible that it would take more energy and more time for a bacterial cell to convert an imidium compound to ammonia vs. ammonium simply losing a proton.

Since you think that Dr. Tim is lazily regurgitating common misinformation, I invite you to contact him, give him the links to the literature that you speak of, and ask him to reconcile those results with his claims.