Does Prime actually "Detoxify" free ammonia, NH3?

[Dan_P]

So they have no data...

If you are a vendor, you can share data or not. If you share the data there is a chance that it just leads to more questions and discussions.

But yes, if there was clear cut data, why not just show it In a way that doesn’t endanger your product’s proprietary secrets.

 

[Azedenkae]

Pathetic.

Are you a paid Seachem shill or employee?

How would >5X Prime be toxic?

Amphipod group 1 (Prime, no ammonia) survived so it wasn't the Prime that killed the 'pods in group 3.

If Seachem claims to detoxify 5 ppm ammonia, is that free ammonia or ammonium? Ammonium is already non-toxic so we'll give Seachem the benefit of the doubt and assume they mean 5 ppm free ammonia. Otherwise, they'd be detoxifying something that's already non-toxic...

And 1.6 ppm free ammonia is well within the 5 ppm claim by Seachem.

Pathetic? Because I pointed out a claim by Seachem? What, the moment I play the Devil's advocate I have to be in the wrong?

I wanted to contribute to the discussion, so I am pointing out a flaw. Who knows what the actual effect is, I certainly don't because I am not a Seachem employee. Or shill, for that matter. But if that's a claim by Seachem - that Prime should only be dosed up to 5x normal dosage, then that's something to be factored in, should it not?

I would only ever presume Seachem Prime detoxifies 5ppm total ammonia, given that's what is often read with a lot of test kits.

But yeah, fair enough that the last column showed that Prime had no toxicity when overdosed beyond 5x dosage. That, is my bad. I misread that part.

[EDIT]

In case it was not clear what I was suggesting (*sigh*), if Seachem Prime says it can only be dosed to 5x dosage, and it is unclear if it's total or free ammonia, then the same test can be repeated with 5ppm ammonia, 5ppm total ammonia, and then 5x dosage of Prime in each case and see how the critters fair.

That would make the experiment a lot more robust.

After all, I myself would like to know for certain if dosing Prime helps detoxify ammonia or not. But I can't make a call unless the evidence is solid.

 

[taricha]

What's to say Prime really works as well when it's 12ppm ammonia, or even if the >5x dosage of Prime is actually the killer itself?

I had that thought myself. Which is why I had the 4th bottle that got no ammonia, but got the same Prime doses - 4x Prime with 4 ppm total ammonia, and an additional 12x prime when the total ammonia went to 12ppm.

If that much prime was harmful, it was less harmful than the ammonia. The amphipods that got a bunch of Prime swam around just the same as the ones in only tank water.

5ppm total ammonia, and then 5x dosage of Prime in each case and see how the critters fair.

That would make the experiment a lot more robust.

Agreed, to a point.
5ppm total ammonia won't kill amphipods though. They are tough boogers. So I'd still be looking at uncomfortable amphipods days or a week later.
In fact, I couldn't find any easily available live foods (pods, brine shrimp etc) that were ammonia-sensitive. They all are tougher than a delicate fish.

This is why I said....

Could the experiment be made more applicable and convincing with sensitive fish and a lower ammonia level? sure, but I have zero interest in doing that since it's clear to me that Prime doesn't detoxify ammonia and it would just end with dead fish.

 

[Azedenkae]

@taricha It's fair that you don't want to end up with dead fish, but I really think it's the only way to confirm or deny the effects of Prime on ammonia toxicity.

Otherwise yeah, I can see that Prime is unlikely to be toxic to fish above 5x dosage (though we can't really affirm that with certainty given we did not actually test that specifically), but still don't think we can say with too much certainty that Prime does not protect fish from 5ppm or less ammonia though.

 

[Malcontent]

Pathetic? Because I pointed out a claim by Seachem? What, the moment I play the Devil's advocate I have to be in the wrong?

I wanted to contribute to the discussion, so I am pointing out a flaw. Who knows what the actual effect is, I certainly don't because I am not a Seachem employee. Or shill, for that matter.

The FTC requires disclosures for endorsing products on social media:

Disclosures 101 for Social Media Influencers

Do you work with brands to recommend or endorse products? If so, you need to comply with the law when making these recommendations. One key is to make a good disclosure of your relationship to the brand. This brochure from FTC staff gives tips on when and how to make good disclosures.

www.ftc.gov

If you receive any sort of consideration from Seachem it must be disclosed.

But if that's a claim by Seachem - that Prime should only be dosed up to 5x normal dosage, then that's something to be factored in, should it not?

Why would they say that? Because it's dangerous when dosed over 5X or because it stops working?

In case it was not clear what I was suggesting (*sigh*), if Seachem Prime says it can only be dosed to 5x dosage, and it is unclear if it's total or free ammonia, then the same test can be repeated with 5ppm ammonia, 5ppm total ammonia, and then 5x dosage of Prime in each case and see how the critters fair.

That would make the experiment a lot more robust.

Well, the starting dose of ammonia was 0.55 free and 4 total. That's pretty close to 5 ppm total ammonia and yet group 1 with no Prime did just fine. If ~5 ppm TAN is non-toxic and Prime can't detoxify >5 ppm TAN then why use it?

After all, I myself would like to know for certain if dosing Prime helps detoxify ammonia or not. But I can't make a call unless the evidence is solid.

Oh, but many people are betting their fishes' lives on it detoxifying ammonia. Based solely on the marketing claims of a company that refuses to provide any data.

 

[taricha]

So, are we saying that prime does not detoxify ammonia, period? Or are we saying it renders reagents in ammonia test kits useless?

It doesn't detoxify ammonia, period.

Yeah, the free ammonia (NH3) specific kits (seachem multi-test disk, seachem ammonia alert badge, and seneye) and the invertebrate behavior all are pointing at the same thing. They are consistent with no noticeable effect on ammonia from Prime.

still don't think we can say with too much certainty that Prime does not protect fish from 5ppm or less ammonia though.

I'll leave it to someone who still believes Prime actually works to save sensitive fish from ammonia do that test.
But if you find me a readily available, unobjectionable, ammonia-sensitive saltwater organism - some "live food" type thing, then maybe.

the instance I thought prime seemed to make a difference was girlfriends huge goldfish tank she disturbed all the substrate and the fish started rolling about, total lethargy and clear poisoning due to the clouding component X

she adds about eighth of a bottle of prime, they self right in 4 mins. no testing was available at all merely visuals

Stirred up gunky sandbed is probably not going to have enough ammonia to raise the level in an entire tank and affect a fish like that. I've only ever measured small ammonia from sandbed samples - like a few tenths to 1ppm in the sand.
I have sucked up some gunky sand and added it to a bottle of tank water. It dropped the O2 level 20-30% (chemically - it was instant) and I could smell rotten eggs odor (H2S maybe). Both of those things could kill fish, and both of those things could also dissipate in minutes - with or without Prime addition.

 

[Azedenkae]

The FTC requires disclosures for endorsing products on social media:

Disclosures 101 for Social Media Influencers

Do you work with brands to recommend or endorse products? If so, you need to comply with the law when making these recommendations. One key is to make a good disclosure of your relationship to the brand. This brochure from FTC staff gives tips on when and how to make good disclosures.

www.ftc.gov

If you receive any sort of consideration from Seachem it must be disclosed.

Yeah, none, so there. @taricha seems to understand perfectly why I said what I said.

Why would they say that? Because it's dangerous when dosed over 5X or because it stops working?

Who knows. Nonetheless, they claim to not dose more than 5x normal dosage, so why should that not be a consideration?

Well, the starting dose of ammonia was 0.55 free and 4 total. That's pretty close to 5 ppm total ammonia and yet group 1 with no Prime did just fine. If ~5 ppm TAN is non-toxic and Prime can't detoxify >5 ppm TAN then why use it?

And as @taricha pointed out, this was not done on fish, or really on any more sensitive organisms. Are you saying we should not worry about ~5ppm TAN (or actually, even higher) or the corresponding free ammonia level, at all when we are betting our live stock's lives on all this? Hm?

Oh, but many people are betting their fishes' lives on it detoxifying ammonia. Based solely on the marketing claims of a company that refuses to provide any data.

And that's why it's important that any experimentation like this should be as robust as it could be. I see a flaw, I pointed it out. That just helps to make it more robust if possible, not less. That's how one avoids being biased in these kind of situations. As much as it is unethical for companies to lie to us, it is also unethical if we spread false information about companies if the evidence is not robust enough for the statements.

 

[Azedenkae]

I'll leave it to someone who still believes Prime actually works to save sensitive fish from ammonia do that test.
But if you find me a readily available, unobjectionable, ammonia-sensitive saltwater organism - some "live food" type thing, then maybe.

Haha, unfortunately I don't have the stomach for that. That's why my research is on microbiology solely lol. I don't feel as bad killing microorganisms in the millions. >_>;; As much as I'd very much like to verify this, because this is not only interesting, but very important.

I have been suggesting dosing Prime for a while now to detoxify Prime, I'd very much like to know if that is something I should stop recommending.

But yeah nah, not for me. For all of y'alls out there - any takers? XD

 

[brandon429]

I also thought nitrite may be in play/half degraded states of proteins/aminos from fish food and waste/large due to goldfish-level concentration

 

[taricha]

I have been suggesting dosing Prime for a while now to detoxify [ammonia], I'd very much like to know if that is something I should stop recommending.

Same.
Like I said, this started for me when I recommended Prime to @Dan_P as a way to force small amounts of NH3 to zero for checking the Seneye. And then it didn't. At all. And now here we are.

 

[Malcontent]

Who knows. Nonetheless, they claim to not dose more than 5x normal dosage, so why should that not be a consideration?

Uh, because we don't know why they made that statement? It does sound like they're concerned about toxicity though.

I find it very hard to believe and very convenient that increasing the dose of Prime stops working once toxic levels of ammonia are reached.

Seachem has a record of making dubious claims regarding nitrite and nitrate and, particularly with the latter, are claiming to detoxify something already non-toxic.

And as @taricha pointed out, this was not done on fish, or really on any more sensitive organisms. Are you saying we should not worry about ~5ppm TAN (or actually, even higher) or the corresponding free ammonia level, at all when we are betting our live stock's lives on all this? Hm?

I don't think anybody is letting TAN get that high without doing a water change or lower pH. I do think that we should be prepared to accept that it often takes much higher levels of ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate to kill test organisms than we would be comfortable with in our aquariums.

And that's why it's important that any experimentation like this should be as robust as it could be. I see a flaw, I pointed it out. That just helps to make it more robust if possible, not less. That's how one avoids being biased in these kind of situations. As much as it is unethical for companies to lie to us, it is also unethical if we spread false information about companies if the evidence is not robust enough for the statements.

The burden of proof is on the manufacturer. They are unwilling to provide any data and have a strong profit motive.

The evidence is stacking up against them. It might not be perfect but at least it exists. And there's no profit incentive.

 

[Azedenkae]

Uh, because we don't know why they made that statement? It does sound like they're concerned about toxicity though.

I mean I presumed so, which I think is what we also all presumed. I mean after all, it's all about concentrations and dosage. Pretty much anything we add to our aquariums could be toxic or have deleterious effects if the dosage is too high, no matter what it is.

I don't think anybody is letting TAN get that high without doing a water change or lower pH. I do think that we should be prepared to accept that it often takes much higher levels of ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate to kill test organisms than we would be comfortable with in our aquariums.

How long have you been on this forum, or in the fish-keeping hobby? If you have not seen anyone let total ammonia get that high... well I am really surprised. It's far more common than you seem to know.

Case in point: https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/ammonia-at-5-in-qt-please-help.849527/

Literally just last week.

The burden of proof is on the manufacturer. They are unwilling to provide any data and have a strong profit motive.

Or the company has to protect their secrets. Of course they have a strong profit motive, does not mean they are all lying through their teeth.

Are the lights I have actually good for coral growth, or are they barely doing the job?

Does my salt contain any unwanted chemicals that the manufacturer is not telling me about?

Is the fish food slowly poisoning the fish with something toxic but maybe vital to the manufacturing process?

We can absolutely question and poke and prod at all the products we use. Some companies are 100% frank about what they have. Others, not so much. Others provide zero bit of info at all.

We have a choice if we want to buy a product or not based on the info available, and if we don't want to, then yeah that can be reason for the company to re-think their secrecy policy. Their only burden is to themselves to remain profitable and keep us as customers if they want such.

If we are to make claims about these products though, especially when it can significantly affect other hobbyists.

The evidence is stacking up against them. It might not be perfect but at least it exists. And there's no profit incentive.

So here's the key statement. Evidence is stacking up against them, but is not perfect.

So my questions to you are:
There's no profit incentive, but there is ethical incentive here. Are you so sure about Prime having zero effect on detoxifying ammonia, that you are absolutely comfortable telling other hobbyists to not use Prime if total ammonia reaches a high level (say 4ppm, as in the experiment) and/or free ammonia reach 0.55ppm, believing any and all of their live stock are safe up to that point?
2. Can you say with absolute certainty the despite the imperfect evidence, that Prime does not detoxify ammonia at all?

 

[Dan_P]

I mean I presumed so, which I think is what we also all presumed. I mean after all, it's all about concentrations and dosage. Pretty much anything we add to our aquariums could be toxic or have deleterious effects if the dosage is too high, no matter what it is.

How long have you been on this forum, or in the fish-keeping hobby? If you have not seen anyone let total ammonia get that high... well I am really surprised. It's far more common than you seem to know.

Case in point: https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/ammonia-at-5-in-qt-please-help.849527/

Literally just last week.



Or the company has to protect their secrets. Of course they have a strong profit motive, does not mean they are all lying through their teeth.

Are the lights I have actually good for coral growth, or are they barely doing the job?

Does my salt contain any unwanted chemicals that the manufacturer is not telling me about?

Is the fish food slowly poisoning the fish with something toxic but maybe vital to the manufacturing process?

We can absolutely question and poke and prod at all the products we use. Some companies are 100% frank about what they have. Others, not so much. Others provide zero bit of info at all.

We have a choice if we want to buy a product or not based on the info available, and if we don't want to, then yeah that can be reason for the company to re-think their secrecy policy. Their only burden is to themselves to remain profitable and keep us as customers if they want such.

If we are to make claims about these products though, especially when it can significantly affect other hobbyists.



So here's the key statement. Evidence is stacking up against them, but is not perfect.

So my questions to you are:
There's no profit incentive, but there is ethical incentive here. Are you so sure about Prime having zero effect on detoxifying ammonia, that you are absolutely comfortable telling other hobbyists to not use Prime if total ammonia reaches a high level (say 4ppm, as in the experiment) and/or free ammonia reach 0.55ppm, believing any and all of their live stock are safe up to that point?
2. Can you say with absolute certainty the despite the imperfect evidence, that Prime does not detoxify ammonia at all?

Our data makes clear that Prime does not lower the concentration of ammonia in saltwater using Seachem’s own ammonia detection devices. We tried to make Prime work. We couldn’t.

Seachem never provided evidence that Prime could lower ammonia. They just said it did. Walking away from this product should be a no brainer.

 

[Malcontent]

I mean I presumed so, which I think is what we also all presumed. I mean after all, it's all about concentrations and dosage. Pretty much anything we add to our aquariums could be toxic or have deleterious effects if the dosage is too high, no matter what it is.

How long have you been on this forum, or in the fish-keeping hobby? If you have not seen anyone let total ammonia get that high... well I am really surprised. It's far more common than you seem to know.

Twenty years. I've seen many people report off-the-charts ammonia with the API test but I don't believe the readings are correct especially since that level of ammonia probably takes some time to accumulate.

Case in point: https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/ammonia-at-5-in-qt-please-help.849527/

Literally just last week.

People in that thread aren't even sure the readings are correct.

Or the company has to protect their secrets. Of course they have a strong profit motive, does not mean they are all lying through their teeth.

They don't need to disclose the ingredients to provide some evidence the product works. Look at what API released regarding Ammo Lock. And they did it while releasing as little information about the ingredients as Seachem. I'm inclined to believe API since they provided some evidence. Between AmmoLock and Prime, the former wins by default.

So here's the key statement. Evidence is stacking up against them, but is not perfect.

So my questions to you are:
There's no profit incentive, but there is ethical incentive here. Are you so sure about Prime having zero effect on detoxifying ammonia, that you are absolutely comfortable telling other hobbyists to not use Prime if total ammonia reaches a high level (say 4ppm, as in the experiment) and/or free ammonia reach 0.55ppm, believing any and all of their live stock are safe up to that point?
2. Can you say with absolute certainty the despite the imperfect evidence, that Prime does not detoxify ammonia at all?

I would tell them to do a water change or use zeolite (if freshwater). I wouldn't recommend relying on Prime or even Ammo Lock (though I have way more confidence in the latter).

I'm approaching 99% confidence that Prime doesn't detoxify ammonia now.

In freshwater forums, people always recommend Prime and/or a water change when dealing with nitrite. Hardly anyone recommends salt even though there's plenty of research confirming its efficacy, it's cheaper, and it doesn't degrade in 48 hours (as claimed). All I can do is pray that the levels of nitrite they're facing aren't really toxic (they usually aren't).

 

[Azedenkae]

I'm approaching 99% confidence that Prime doesn't detoxify ammonia now.

So that's a no to my yes/no question then?

 

[Malcontent]

So that's a no to my yes/no question then?

I'm still open to the possibility that it detoxifies ammonia because only Sith deal in absolutes. I think it's extremely unlikely though.

When I last moved in 2017, I dosed Prime to help with ammonia. If I were to move again I definitely wouldn't bother.

 

[Azedenkae]

Our data makes clear that Prime does not lower the concentration of ammonia in saltwater using Seachem’s own ammonia detection devices. We tried to make Prime work. We couldn’t.

Seachem never provided evidence that Prime could lower ammonia. They just said it did. Walking away from this product should be a no brainer.

All I wanted to ensure was we were not pulling the wrong conclusion because we were dosing more than 5x dosage.

If you give a reason to doubt, there will be doubt. And this is a clear reason to doubt.

If 5ppm ammonia (let's go with total) kills something, and then dosing 5x Prime does not solve the issue, then that's the clearest evidence I could see. I'd love to know for certain what is going on here, but I can't accept partial evidence as complete evidence.

Again, I personally could not bring myself to test this on fish, specifically something we often keep, that'd be something I'd love to know the results of. Whether it'd be 'oh actually, 5ppm (total) ammonia is not toxic to fish, so eh either way' or 'yeah 5ppm (total) ammonia is toxic to fish, and prime did not help'. Either answer would be awesome, though the latter would be best for obvious reasons.

I am not saying by the way, that this experiment is completely pointless or that there are not some interesting or important information that came out of this. I am pointing to the incompleteness of it, and that's fine, not all experiments can be so all-encompassing that it answers all doubts at once.

On the same token, I would only ever derive conclusions to the extent that the experiment could provide, no more, no less. The experiment did not deal with fish, did not actually prove that Prime could not detoxify (total) ammonia at less than 5ppm, so I am still curious about that. That's all.

 

[Malcontent]

Why would Prime suddenly stop working above 5 ppm or a 5X dosage?

If Prime was dosed higher, there would be whining and whinging about how Prime needs 1X for every 1 mg/L ammonia and it should be 12X (or whatever).

OK, so then we don't raise ammonia levels beyond 5 ppm.

And then no test organisms in any group die.

It reminds me of controversies in one of my other hobbies. Whenever a study unfavorable to a certain position is released, they just say the sample size was too small without even performing any sort of statistical analysis.

When somebody posts a study favorable to their position, they can't stop talking about it and have nothing to say about the sample size. Then it's revealed the OP mistyped the title and it's actually unfavorable to them...

 

[Azedenkae]

I'm still open to the possibility that it detoxifies ammonia because only Sith deal in absolutes. I think it's extremely unlikely though.

When I last moved in 2017, I dosed Prime to help with ammonia. If I were to move again I definitely wouldn't bother.

Okay. So you called me a shill just because I pointed out that Seachem Prime did say their product can only be dosed up to 5x dosage, which corresponds to detoxifying 5ppm ammonia. Now you are not 100% sure either. Cool. That's great, just great. Sorry I guess for just wanting to be more certain of the conclusion drawn. Or something. I dunno, I mean clearly you were mad and I still don't actually know why.

Twenty years. I've seen many people report off-the-charts ammonia with the API test but I don't believe the readings are correct especially since that level of ammonia probably takes some time to accumulate.

People in that thread aren't even sure the readings are correct.

A week or two could be all that's needed. @taricha helped give me some calculations, and for a reef tank I feed around 0.4ppm a day. I actually feed my freshwater tank way higher, at around 0.75ppm a day. Surprised me when I calculated. In my saltwater tank, if it was not cycled, it takes 12.5 days to be exact. For my freshwater tank way back when, I calculated it would take less than a week.

That's also the timeframe in which people can start reporting high ammonia so... yeah, not surprised. Of course, that requires that people did not cycle properly, or were overfeeding, or were going through a whole host of other issues... which unsurprisingly often can all happen to beginners.

They don't need to disclose the ingredients to provide some evidence the product works. Look at what API released regarding Ammo Lock. And they did it while releasing as little information about the ingredients as Seachem. I'm inclined to believe API since they provided some evidence. Between AmmoLock and Prime, the former wins by default.

And again, I acknowledged that it's the choice of the companies. Exactly, you are right - and that was what I was getting at as well. A bit of openness goes a long way. My point exactly, congrats for reiterating it.

I would tell them to do a water change or use zeolite (if freshwater). I wouldn't recommend relying on Prime or even Ammo Lock (though I have way more confidence in the latter).

Coolio.

In freshwater forums, people always recommend Prime and/or a water change when dealing with nitrite. Hardly anyone recommends salt even though there's plenty of research confirming its efficacy, it's cheaper, and it doesn't degrade in 48 hours (as claimed). All I can do is pray that the levels of nitrite they're facing aren't really toxic (they usually aren't).

Don't forget that a lot of freshwater live stock that people may keep are reportedly intolerant even of slightly elevated salinity though. But otherwise you are right.

 

[Azedenkae]

Why would Prime suddenly stop working above 5 ppm or a 5X dosage?

Again, I do not know the answer to this, and how does this ever make what I say problematic?

If the company does not recommend dosing it above 5x, then that's something we should take into account. That's all I am saying. I feel like you are taking that statement for wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy more than what it was.

If Prime was dosed higher, there would be whining and whinging about how Prime needs 1X for every 1 mg/L ammonia and it should be 12X (or whatever).

OK, so then we don't raise ammonia levels beyond 5 ppm.

And then no test organisms in any group die.

The conclusion has to match the experiment.

Seachem Prime can only be dosed to 5x dosage, according to them. Reason? No idea. Does it matter? No.

We want to show it does not detoxify ammonia at 5ppm or less?

Then show it does not detoxify ammonia at 5ppm or less.

Show that yes, ammonia at 5ppm or less are harming some organism. Then show that even with dosing Prime, ammonia is still killing them. Straightforward. Nothing crazy or complex or asking for too much or has to be done in a laboratory. Because you know what?

Here, all we know is, <5ppm total ammonia is not killing the amphipods whether there is Prime or not. There's no way to infer if Prime is doing anything to ammonia if 5ppm or less here.

It reminds me of controversies in one of my other hobbies. Whenever a study unfavorable to a certain position is released, they just say the sample size was too small without even performing any sort of statistical analysis.


When somebody posts a study favorable to their position, they can't stop talking about it and have nothing to say about the sample size. Then it's revealed the OP mistyped the title and it's actually unfavorable to them...

I don't even know what's the relevance here. But presuming you are saying the complaint here may be because of sample size...? (again, I have absolutely no idea where you are heading here, just guessing), then it's not about the sample size. It's about the test subjects. @taricha himself said he didn't want to test this on fish, and amphipods are unfortunately pretty resilient to ammonia. That has nothing to do with sample size (although I would much like to see a larger sample size and more replicates, but anyways besides the point).