Well the professor is esentially wrong though, as the bacteria in BS is just regular run of the mill aquarium bacteria. Which cannot survive the stress from a jump in specific gravity that high, at most it would be able to survive 1.000-1.002. Even if some did survive it wouldn't be enough to make it safe to add fish for some time.
No pairing of unprotected bacteria will fully survive any sudden change in water parameters of that magnitude. But the appropriate bacteria for light BW are still the FW bacteria. I'll go with Tim Hovanec's suggestions.
Besides which, I have no data on the storage solution used for BioSpira, but I'd bet on it being high-viscosity and high permeability for the cell menbranes. As such it will be addition proctection for the newly transplanted bacteria.
Have you tested this for yourself? Or is this dry lab? Before you say that someone with a very solid reputation is incorrect, it is wise and prudent to know what you are talking about, in fact, not in thought. If you have data, please share it.
I don't know the guy personally, but he led the team that developed the product and I have no reason to doubt his response. In case you haven't checked already, here is a link to his bio:
I would skeptical of anything posted on the marineland website, regardless of who wrote it. They're just trying to market their product. Pretty much anyone who knows their water chemistry knows that beneficial bacteria cannot survive that large of a PH swing. I'm suprised to see someone with a PHD making claims of this nature without any reason to why it would survive a large ph swing. I also notice that not a single one of his articles has been published in anything other than AFM, a magazine of which is quite "favourable" towards convincing people to buying more fish and more marineland products for which they cannot properly care for due to the poor advice given in the magazine. Had anyone else made claims like this, it might be feasable to take what he said seriously. However, because it's on the marineland website it's probably strictly for marketing purposes.
1. The discussion was about SG ranges, not PH ranges.
2. The question has come up repeatedly so I contacted the company and posted the response that I received. I did not write the response and I have no personal experience with BioSpira whatsoever. I cycled my FW and BW tanks with ammonia.
3. My question to the company was which version of the product should be used for BW tanks. I did not ask that they explain how the product worked or why we should expect either FW or Marine BioSpira to even be effective in BW.
4. The link to Hovanec's Bio was provided as reference information only. You may choose to question his qualifications because he happens to work for the company and has published articles in AFM. I personally don't see that these facts make him any less qualified, nor do they necessarily make me question his response, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion.
5. You made some pretty strong arguments that the product cannot possibly work over such a wide SG range (assuming you meant SG vice PH as stated). I would be interested in hearing about specific tests that you have conducted with this product.
I meant SG, not ph. Anyways, just because it's a "product" does not make the bacteria and less susceptible to the adverse swings in SG and ph than bacteria in a stable setting. It's simply harvested bacteria taken from a stable setting given a solution to survive on for a set amount of time. It's not "super" bacteria that is not prone to the same effects normal bacteria is prone to. Marineland and other companies make claims like this as a marketing ploy directed to intrigue the un-educated hobbyist that is looking for an easy way to get fish right away after purchasing a setup. Unfourtuneatly I, like all canadians and anywhere else in the world other than the states are not able to get ahold of biospira to test this "claim". Do you not find it at all odd that he makes a claim of this nature without having any kind of data or results to back it up? How many other aquarium products are claimed to have "amazing" effects on your fish or water chemistry and prove to be nothing more than snake oil? These claims are also made by company "biologists" of the manafacturers that produce these so-called wonders.
Sure I've heard alot of good things about biospira working, but I've also heard the bad as well. I would take the safe route while using this product and use it in FW, and slowly raise the SG to where you want it.
cdawson wrote:Do you not find it at all odd that he makes a claim of this nature without having any kind of data or results to back it up?
Maybe he does have the data to back up the "claim"? Maybe it is buried in one of the extensive article posted in the BioSpira Research section of their web site? The bottom line is that I did not ask that he provide detailed data with his response. If you'd like to debate the accuracy of these claims directly with Dr. Hovanec, let me know and I will provide his email address.
Skepticism is a valuable tool. But it is best satisfied with data. If you lack the data, you have no solid ground to stand on to dispute. Dry-lab discussions are just hot air, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".
If there are no data to be presented, be very circumspect in your discussion.
RTR wrote:Skepticism is a valuable tool. But it is best satisfied with data. If you lack the data, you have no solid ground to stand on to dispute. Dry-lab discussions are just hot air, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".
If there are no data to be presented, be very circumspect in your discussion.
I only wish I had access to biospira I would definately research this and post my results. I was unable to find anything in any of the articles of how he kept bacteria alive for that large of a salinity increase. Rest assured if I can ever get my hands on biospira I would love to settle this.
