Zeobak or mb7

[Mschmidt]

I'm on my last few doses of mb7. I've been hitting it with my coral snow roughly weekly and am wondering if there is better out there.

Zeo saves me about 6 cents per dose, which isn't nothing.

 

[exnisstech]

Following. I currently dose both zeobak and MB7 bi weekly. Can't say for sure it helps but they were dry rock bare bottom start ups and I pretty much avoided the uglies and the tanks are doing great so I'm hesitant to change.

 

[Mschmidt]

both seems to be somewhat popular too. I was dosing clean and 7, didn't see much change to clean, but that could be me too. 7 at least seems benign. I'd like more though.

Goals would be nutrient control n down from 40 to sub-20 and p under .2 from the current .7. also would like to feed the coral with said bac.

 

[exnisstech]

I also dose bacto balance daily. With that combo my stick tank N and P stay barely detectable and corals are doing well. In my mixed reef which I feed multiple times a day runs N 10-12 and P 0.2-0.3 I don't even run skimmers so something is working.

 

[Mschmidt]

I'll look into that too. Thanks

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

I'm on my last few doses of mb7. I've been hitting it with my coral snow roughly weekly and am wondering if there is better out there.

Zeo saves me about 6 cents per dose, which isn't nothing.

What are you hoping they do?

 

[Mschmidt]

Help control nutrients, the feed coral, make me sound important when I talk about it on line (should say I'm joking because Internet doesn't know tone).
Bonus points for tidying the tank, curing rickets, winning me the novel peace prize.

 

[LARedstickreefer]

Help control nutrients, the feed coral, make me sound important when I talk about it on line (should say I'm joking because Internet doesn't know tone).
Bonus points for tidying the tank, curing rickets, winning me the novel peace prize.

Let’s not forget: Beating Dinos, crystal clear water, making our plain Acros become “grafted” or whatever, and causing jawbreakers to become purple.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Glad we all have realistic aspirations for these lowest of creatures. lol

I'm not a fan of continually adding nitrifiers to the tank (they steal ammonia from corals and leave then with less preferred nitrate).

I do not know if the Brightwell claim is reliable since taricha failed to find it reducing ammonia:

Not all Cycling Bacteria are created equal. Who's who, and what do they need?

Here's Group 3 data. I'm really enjoying how many different cycling curve shapes I'm getting from the different nitrifying products. Group 3 Total Ammonia and Nitrite Fritz Turbo start, and Caribsea Ocean Direct responded to ammonia-only quickly and cleared it in about the same time, but the...

www.reef2reef.com

, but Brightwell MB7 claims

"to enhance the rate of nitrification"

while zeobak claims:

"• Reduces the initial cycle of fresh tanks to only 14 days if used accordingto our description"

Thus, both may contain nitrifiers, and I personally would not use a product containing them.

PNS substrate sauce does not seem to drop ammonia (in taricha's test above) and does not claim to do so, thus might be a better bet.

 

[Mschmidt]

Glad we all have realistic aspirations for these lowest of creatures. lol

I'd hate to be the one to limit their potential. The first step to achieving greatness is believing we can.

I'm not a fan of continually adding nitrifiers to the tank (they steal ammonia from corals and leave then with less preferred nitrate).

I do not know if the Brightwell claim is reliable since taricha failed to find it reducing ammonia:

Not all Cycling Bacteria are created equal. Who's who, and what do they need?

Here's Group 3 data. I'm really enjoying how many different cycling curve shapes I'm getting from the different nitrifying products. Group 3 Total Ammonia and Nitrite Fritz Turbo start, and Caribsea Ocean Direct responded to ammonia-only quickly and cleared it in about the same time, but the...

www.reef2reef.com

, but Brightwell MB7 claims

"to enhance the rate of nitrification"

while zeobak claims:

"• Reduces the initial cycle of fresh tanks to only 14 days if used accordingto our description"

Thus, both may contain nitrifiers, and I personally would not use a product containing them.

PNS substrate sauce does not seem to drop ammonia (in taricha's test above) and does not claim to do so, thus might be a better bet.

I wonder if "speeds up the cycling process" is thrown on these as a way to sell product. I would assume that ammonia consuming bac would be the first to die after bottling and that's why taricha didn't find any reduction.


The Zeo claim strikes me as similar to "chicken soup shortens a cold". I'm not sure I've had a cycle last even up to that long.

Pns seems to make the claim too though (at least at saltwater aquarium dot com)

And they must tie that to the r. Palustris, cuz that's the only bac they say is in pro bio, and they have the same claim.

I've been meaning to add one but my hang-up, at least for this conversation (regular dosing) is the per dose price. Substrate sauce is $7, mb7 $0.5, and zeobac less. I could be sold on an annual dose of a hydro-whatever product, but weekly nah, I'll keep my .7 phos or hit the LaCl more.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

I'd hate to be the one to limit their potential. The first step to achieving greatness is believing we can.

I wonder if "speeds up the cycling process" is thrown on these as a way to sell product. I would assume that ammonia consuming bac would be the first to die after bottling and that's why taricha didn't find any reduction.


The Zeo claim strikes me as similar to "chicken soup shortens a cold". I'm not sure I've had a cycle last even up to that long.

Pns seems to make the claim too though (at least at saltwater aquarium dot com)

And they must tie that to the r. Palustris, cuz that's the only bac they say is in pro bio, and they have the same claim.

I've been meaning to add one but my hang-up, at least for this conversation (regular dosing) is the per dose price. Substrate sauce is $7, mb7 $0.5, and zeobac less. I could be sold on an annual dose of a hydro-whatever product, but weekly nah, I'll keep my .7 phos or hit the LaCl more.

It is certainly possible the claims are meant to sound good to everyone even if they have little to no effect on nitrifiers.

 

[Kenneth Wingerter]

I operate Hydrospace and can offer a few thoughts here. I don't know what's in the other products mentioned, so it's hard for me (just as the consumer) to make reasoned comparisons. Appears that Bacillus is a common component of many of these, including one mentioned here above..? Anyway, purple non-sulfur bacteria (PNSB) are distinctly different from the majority of bacteria currently available in our hobby. For starters, they're actually a natural, common and decidedly beneficial member of healthy reefs in the wild. They do (along with other diazotrophs) play a significant role in nitrogen cycling near, and even on, corals. That however does not include nitrification.

But I agree with Randy that nitrifiers steal ammonia from corals and leave them with less-preferred nitrate. PNSB will of course remove ammonia, nitrate, nitrite and nitrate through assimilation (growth) like all bacteria, but because they're diazotrophs they provide a net gain for ammonia. The above-mentioned R. palustris (which is used in both PNS ProBio and PNS Substrate Sauce) is additionally capable of denitrification, so it can be especially effective for reducing nitrate concentration in aquaria/aquaculture systems if provided with adequate anaerobic habitat.

All that being said, our products are intended primarily to be a very nutritious bacterioplanktonic food--their ability to stabilize N, accumulate P and degrade recalcitrant organic wastes is thought of simply as a cherry on top. Basically a food that helps to resolve, rather than exacerbate, issues related to excess nutrient concentrations.

 

[Mschmidt]

Thanks for weighing in @Kenneth Wingerter. I have always respected your transparency regarding what's in the bottle.

Could you help me understand the differences in dosage? For my system I would need 4 oz of substrate sauce, 10 ml mb7, or 4 drops zeobac to dose according to the manufacturer's recommendations. I understand if you can only speak for yourself and Hydrospace, rather than presuming about the other two. The only thing I can think of is it's either density of bac (hard to believe your bottles are that empty), but there is probably something much more scientific behind it.

 

[Kenneth Wingerter]

Thanks for weighing in @Kenneth Wingerter. I have always respected your transparency regarding what's in the bottle.

Could you help me understand the differences in dosage? For my system I would need 4 oz of substrate sauce, 10 ml mb7, or 4 drops zeobac to dose according to the manufacturer's recommendations. I understand if you can only speak for yourself and Hydrospace, rather than presuming about the other two. The only thing I can think of is it's either density of bac (hard to believe your bottles are that empty), but there is probably something much more scientific behind it.

Thanks Mschmidt. Yes, differences of culture density could easily be one factor. For example, think of some of these products which contain sporiform bacteria such as Bacillus spp.; they could potentially be quite concentrated whereas nonsporiform species (sold in their active form) will necessarily be less concentrated, even if cultivated to carrying capacity. The latter may be centrifuged to varying extents, but I can promise you that such would significantly increase the cost of said product (even while reducing viability).

Also, manufacturer recommendations for dosage might vary even for the same species, or even for the very same product. Some recommended dosages, of course, may be rather arbitrary if not based on what the sales/marketing department believes will keep consumers returning most often (rather than optimal efficacy). Where the dosage is based upon actual research, it can vary significantly depending on intended application. For example, our base dosage of 1.25 ml/gal/day is essentially an average based on numerous peer-reviewed studies where use of PNSB was correlated with improved health of aquacultured species; the key metrics in these investigations, however, range widely from nutrient control, removal of organic wastes, nutrition/probiotic effects, suppression of pathogens, etc.

Since PNSB are completely benign, there's no risk of overdose. In fact, we encourage elevated dosages in certain situations (gut loading live feed, colonizing biomedia, etc.). That being said, many users report satisfactory results at much lower or less frequent doses (it's likely that these are cases where the bacteria are able to persist and even multiply within the system). As such, the 1.25 ml dosage is intended as a starting point that one may safely increase/decrease as desired, though it does appear to be a good dosage for the purpose of supplementing the diets of filter-feeding bacterioplanktivores (including, but not limited to, corals). And that's important, because as far as we're concerned, the primary use of these products is as a nutritious live food. Hence the recommendation for relatively smaller/frequent, rather than big/infrequent, dosages.

Hope that helps!

 

[Mschmidt]

Thanks Mschmidt. Yes, differences of culture density could easily be one factor. For example, think of some of these products which contain sporiform bacteria such as Bacillus spp.; they could potentially be quite concentrated whereas nonsporiform species (sold in their active form) will necessarily be less concentrated, even if cultivated to carrying capacity. The latter may be centrifuged to varying extents, but I can promise you that such would significantly increase the cost of said product (even while reducing viability).

Also, manufacturer recommendations for dosage might vary even for the same species, or even for the very same product. Some recommended dosages, of course, may be rather arbitrary if not based on what the sales/marketing department believes will keep consumers returning most often (rather than optimal efficacy). Where the dosage is based upon actual research, it can vary significantly depending on intended application. For example, our base dosage of 1.25 ml/gal/day is essentially an average based on numerous peer-reviewed studies where use of PNSB was correlated with improved health of aquacultured species; the key metrics in these investigations, however, range widely from nutrient control, removal of organic wastes, nutrition/probiotic effects, suppression of pathogens, etc.

Since PNSB are completely benign, there's no risk of overdose. In fact, we encourage elevated dosages in certain situations (gut loading live feed, colonizing biomedia, etc.). That being said, many users report satisfactory results at much lower or less frequent doses (it's likely that these are cases where the bacteria are able to persist and even multiply within the system). As such, the 1.25 ml dosage is intended as a starting point that one may safely increase/decrease as desired, though it does appear to be a good dosage for the purpose of supplementing the diets of filter-feeding bacterioplanktivores (including, but not limited to, corals). And that's important, because as far as we're concerned, the primary use of these products is as a nutritious live food. Hence the recommendation for relatively smaller/frequent, rather than big/infrequent, dosages.

Hope that helps!

That does help in two ways: my understanding of what's happening in my tank, and filling time while I'm at work. I have too much to do at home, and not enough to do a work...