Closed .

[RennjiDK]

On 8/9/2023 at 3:05 PM, madmark285 said:

I asked about this, someone gave me this link. I bought Matrix for ammonia and nitrites, I don't believe these guys about nitrates. Just keeping anoxic bacteria alive is difficult. 

Alternative Nitrate Reduction via Emergents

It's actually fairly easy, and pretty much any media including sand can do it. There are plenty of low oxygen environments in our tanks. Anaerobic bacteria, like most things, quickly become carbon limited in an aquarium. Adding a carbon source (alcohol, vinegar, sugar, etc) will cause them to bloom and metabolize the excess No3. The problem in FW is that once this happens, the bacteria die off with no means to remove them from the water. As they decompose, they release an equal amount of NH3 as the No3 they've just converted, giving you a net zero change to your nitrates.

On 8/9/2023 at 12:45 AM, IanB said:

Almost all YouTube videos that I have seen purporting to prove or disprove this are either flawed (using prime or ammonia-binding conditioners which PondGuru and others say will prevent their media from completing the cycle), one-offs without controls, or have so many uncontrolled variables that their conclusions are suspect. I’d love to see a quality study (and one may be out there that I haven’t come across!) even though in a planted aquarium it matters little to me as I like having nitrates and have to add more via ferts otherwise my plants keep them at zero.

Prime is chemically incapable of binding to or converting NH3/4. It absolutely will not stall your cycle, because it has no effect on ammonia. It's just marketing lies from Seachem.

On 8/9/2023 at 12:38 PM, Lennie said:

Actually Jason has a video about it explaining why you don't actually "need" to do that scientifically. I cleaned mined in tap water multiple times and put back into newly changed water where I dosed prime already. Haven't noticed anything wrong with cycle before 🤷🏼‍♂️

In case you haven't seen it, here you go

 

If tap water could sterilize your biomedia, it would also be able to sterilize your hands, but 100% of doctors and biologists would still recommended using soap.

Edited August 10, 2023 by RennjiDK

[OnlyGenusCaps]

On 8/10/2023 at 3:54 PM, RennjiDK said:

Prime is chemically incapable of binding to or converting NH3/4. It absolutely will not stall your cycle, because it has no effect on ammonia. It's just marketing lies from Seachem.

The thread was shut down because people got max aggro about it, but there are chemical means that suggest Prime could work pretty well as the label says.  Up front I'll say, I am not here to argue about this with anyone.  I just thought you might be interested in some of the chemistry and patents related to that and similar products.  If not, feel free to ignore it and move on.  No hurt feeling from me if that's what you decide. (I know it's a lot of hedging language, but this topic seems to bring out something in a few folks like they have a dog in that fight or something.  I don't know why.  But now I do a bit of this first.  Sorry.)

It's a long read, but I really like the post:

 

[RennjiDK]

On 8/10/2023 at 10:32 PM, OnlyGenusCaps said:

The thread was shut down because people got max aggro about it, but there are chemical means that suggest Prime could work pretty well as the label says.  Up front I'll say, I am not here to argue about this with anyone.  I just thought you might be interested in some of the chemistry and patents related to that and similar products.  If not, feel free to ignore it and move on.  No hurt feeling from me if that's what you decide. (I know it's a lot of hedging language, but this topic seems to bring out something in a few folks like they have a dog in that fight or something.  I don't know why.  But now I do a bit of this first.  Sorry.)

It's a long read, but I really like the post:

 

Every time I try to tell someone that prime doesn't work, this "experiment" gets posted. This is the problem with hobbyist trying to conduct scientific research. They are not scientists, specifically in this case, chemists. The api NH3/4 reagent is a salicylate based test, which uses the chemical's ability to change colors in the presence of ammonia. The active declorinator in prime binds to salicylate and converts it into a form of chloride. Guess what prime actually does remove? Chloride. All that you are doing by dosing prime in an api test is removing the reagent you just put in the tube. That's why they never change colors, and why when tested by other, non salicylate testing means, like a gas exchange sensor system (like seneye), they all still show whatever ammonia level was dosed at the start of the test. There's no controversy at all. It's very basic chemistry.

Edited August 11, 2023 by RennjiDK

[Galabar]

This looks interesting (details possible ammonia and Prime interactions, also mentioning seneye):

https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/possible-mechanism-for-seachem-prime-detoxification-of-ammonia.859507/#:~:text=Seachem says Prime contains hydrosulfite,a chemical synonym for dithionite.

Seems like there are a lot of interesting thoughts/ideas flying around about Prime.

I guess a (brutal) experiment would be to maintain tanks of fish with the same (harmful) ammonia concentrations, but constantly adding Prime to one (yikes).  Another would be seeing how long fish survive in a bag with and without Prime added (double yikes).

Whatever one believes about the complex chemical interactions that might be happening with Prime, it certainly seems likes its efficacy could be tested.

Edited August 11, 2023 by Galabar

[RennjiDK]

On 8/10/2023 at 11:52 PM, Galabar said:

This looks interesting (details possible ammonia and Prime interactions, also mentioning seneye):

https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/possible-mechanism-for-seachem-prime-detoxification-of-ammonia.859507/#:~:text=Seachem says Prime contains hydrosulfite,a chemical synonym for dithionite.

Seems like there is a lot of interesting thoughts/ideas flying around about Prime.

I guess a (brutal) experiment would be to maintain tanks of fish with the same (harmful) ammonia concentrations, but constantly adding Prime to one (yikes).  Another would be how long fish survive in a bag with and without Prime added (double yikes).

 

There is zero debate, and that is hardly an experiment. To quote the very same chemist you just linked:

I don't get how many times this needs to be beaten to death. Chemisty is chemistry. Like math, it doesn't change.

[Galabar]

Are you saying there's zero debate that Prime interferes with the API ammonia test?  That seems to be true from both what you are saying and what the other link mentions.

Are you saying that Prime in no way temporarily detoxifies ammonia?  That seems to be what is being debated in the other link.

Are you also saying that we couldn't test for the efficacy of Prime (as advertised by Seachem)?  I think that would be clearly wrong (but I'm not sure if that is what you are saying).

 

Edited August 11, 2023 by Galabar

[RennjiDK]

On 8/11/2023 at 12:11 AM, Galabar said:

Are you saying there's zero debate that Prime interferes with the API ammonia test?

 

Yes. It absolutely does. The chemical reaction was posted in my reply.

[Galabar]

On 8/10/2023 at 9:14 PM, RennjiDK said:

Yes. It absolutely does. The chemical reaction was posted in my reply.

Ok, so your main claim is that Prime interferes with the API ammonia test.  That doesn't seem like a major reason to get frustrated.  Is anyone disagreeing with you about that?

[RennjiDK]

On 8/11/2023 at 12:17 AM, Galabar said:

Ok, so your main claim is that Prime interferes with the API ammonia test.  That doesn't seem like a major reason to get frustrated.  Is anyone disagreeing with you about that?

Yes, both the above linked experiment and your edited reply. Look, if it worked, then it would be able to be proven. You can dose distilled water to a concentration of 2ppm NH3, then dump an entire 250ml bottle of prime in. When tested with a seneye, it will show 2ppm, minus the dilution that the 250ml of extra liquid created. It does not work, and has never been proven to. Not one single person in a lab environment has been able to substantiate the claim.

There are 4 threads on R2R, 2 major ones, including the one you linked above. Every single chemist came to the same conclusion. Why is it so hard to believe?

[Galabar]

On 8/10/2023 at 9:26 PM, RennjiDK said:

Yes, both the above linked experiment and your edited reply. Look, if it worked, then it would be able to be proven. You can dose distilled water to a concentration of 2ppm NH3, then dump an entire 250ml bottle of prime in. When tested with a seneye, it will show 2ppm, minus the dilution that the 250ml of extra liquid created. It does not work, and has never been proven to. Not one single person in a lab environment has been able to substantiate the claim.

So, your claim is that Prime doesn't temporarily detoxify/bind with ammonia?  That seems to be what the above link is discussing. That particular issue doesn't seem to be settled.

You seem to be coming from the angle that you can't detect a difference in ammonia when using Prime.  In particular you can still detect ammonia using seneye.

You might change your thinking a bit -- rather than being able to detect ammonia, think about it as "is the ammonia in a state where it can harm fauna."  When coming from that angle, I bet you could devise an experiment to help confirm or deny Seachem's claims.

I think where you might be falling over is assuming that detecting ammonia falsifies Seachem's claims.  I don't think it does.  Rather, what would falsify Seachem's claims would be to show that Prime doesn't protect fauna in the presence of ammonia.  That might be more difficult, but I think that is what needs to be done here.

Edited August 11, 2023 by Galabar

[RennjiDK]

On 8/11/2023 at 12:33 AM, Galabar said:

So, your claim is that Prime doesn't temporarily detoxify/bind with ammonia?  That seems to be what the above link is discussing. That particular issue doesn't seem to be settled.

You seem to be coming from the angle that you can't detect a difference in ammonia when using Prime.  In particular you can still detect ammonia using seneye.

You might change your thinking a bit -- rather than being able to detect ammonia, think about it as "is the ammonia in a state where it can harm fauna."  When coming from that angle, I bet you could devise an experiment to help confirm or deny Seachem's claims.

I think where you might be falling over is assuming that detecting ammonia falsifies Seachem's claims.  I don't think it does.  Rather, what would falsify Seachem's claims would be to show that Prime doesn't protect fauna in the presence of ammonia.  That might be more difficult, but I think that is what needs to be done here.

If prime was able to "bind" with ammonia (chemically change it into a different compound), it would not be able to show as NH3. If it converted it into another form of nitrogen, we would be able to register it. Since neither of these claims are true via any test method applied so far, it does not work. There is no such thing as "detoxifying" a compound. You detoxify it by converting it into somthing else. That is, unless you're suggesting that alchemy is real, and seachem has fundamentally changed our understanding of the universe?

[Galabar]

The link above seems to talk those about possibilities.  There could be any number of things going on.   Maybe it creates a cage of some sort (https://pubs.acs.org/page/inocaj/InorganicCagesandContainers.html).  Who knows.

The point is that you are trying to falsify Seachem's claims in the wrong way.  You are trying to chase down every possible way that Seachem could be coming between ammonia and fauna and trying to exhaustively list all ways of measuring/detecting the ammonia.  You just need to miss one to be wrong.

Let me ask you this: describe an experiment where you would use Prime and some fauna to test Seachem's claims.

Edited August 11, 2023 by Galabar

[RennjiDK]

On 8/11/2023 at 1:35 AM, Galabar said:

The link above seems to talk those about possibilities.  There could be any number of things going on.   Maybe it creates a cage of some sort (https://pubs.acs.org/page/inocaj/InorganicCagesandContainers.html).  Who knows.

The point is that you are trying to falsify Seachem's claims in the wrong way.  You are trying to chase down every possible way that Seachem could be coming between ammonia and fauna and trying to exhaustively list all ways of measuring/detecting the ammonia.

Let me ask you this: describe an experiment where you would use Prime and some fauna to test Seachem's claims.

https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/prime-does-not-remove-ammonia.885857/

Here is the follow up link to the one you posted earlier. After the experiments concluded, Randy himself says that the claims of seachem are completely unsubstantiated. If multiple professional marine chemists have conducted separate experiments and arrived at the same conclusion, and you still dont believe them, I don't know what else to tell you.

[Galabar]

On 8/10/2023 at 10:40 PM, RennjiDK said:

https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/prime-does-not-remove-ammonia.885857/

Here is the follow up link to the one you posted earlier. After the experiments concluded, Randy himself says that the claims of seachem are completely unsubstantiated. If multiple professional marine chemists have conducted separate experiments and arrived at the same conclusion, and you still dont believe them, I don't know what else to tell you.

This is the same thing you mentioned previously.  They aren't able to measure a reduction in ammonia.  There was no testing of the actually claims that Seachem made -- that Prime protects fauna from ammonia.

Maybe the ammonia is going into and out of a complexed state quickly enough to be detected, but not quickly enough to cause problems for fauna.  Again, who knows.

Your argument is that you can still detect ammonia after using Prime.  That's not enough.

The bottom line is that you aren't directly attacking the claim that Seachem is making.  You (or someone) will need to actual test it.  There may simply be a mechanism that you haven't thought of yet.

So, again, I ask, what experiments would you recommend that would actually confirm your claim that Prime is useless in this regard?

Side note: although it seems cruel, I think experimenting with Prime and fish would be ethical if you considered the long-term ramifications of knowing whether Prime actual does what it claims to do.

Side note #2: the link above does state multiple times that in-vivio (living organism) testing might be called for here.

Side note #3: it looks like Seachem does describe a particular testing regime on their website that seems to be wrong, given what others have seen.  So, at least in specific that area, you could say they are wrong.

Edited August 11, 2023 by Galabar

[RennjiDK]

On 8/11/2023 at 1:47 AM, Galabar said:

This is the same thing you mentioned previously.  They aren't able to measure a reduction in ammonia.  There was no testing of the actually claims that Seachem made -- that Prime protects fauna from ammonia.

Are you seriously suggesting that Prime wraps fish in some kind of protective bubble?

On 8/11/2023 at 1:47 AM, Galabar said:

Maybe the ammonia is going into and out of a complexed state quickly enough to be detected, but not quickly enough to cause problems for fauna.  Again, who knows.

Scientists. Scientists know. Also most people with common sense, because that is literally impossible.

On 8/11/2023 at 1:47 AM, Galabar said:

Your argument is that you can still detect ammonia after using Prime.  That's not enough.

It is, because it's still there. We can see it.

On 8/11/2023 at 1:47 AM, Galabar said:

The bottom line is that you aren't directly attacking the claim that Seachem is making.  You (or someone) will need to actual test it.  There may simply be a mechanism that you haven't thought of yet.

There is not.

On 8/11/2023 at 1:47 AM, Galabar said:

So, again, I ask, what experiments would you recommend that would actually confirm your claim that Prime is useless in this regard?

They've ready been done and proven. You need to experiment and provide evidence for your rapidly fluctuating nitrogen compond/bio shield theory. 

On 8/11/2023 at 1:47 AM, Galabar said:

Side note: although it seems cruel, I think experimenting with Prime and fish would be ethical if you considered the long-term ramifications of knowing whether Prime actual does what it claims to do.

 

You really seem to want to kill those fish, because you keep saying that over and over. Please don't kill those poor fish.

[Galabar]

On 8/10/2023 at 11:09 PM, RennjiDK said:

Are you seriously suggesting that Prime wraps fish in some kind of protective bubble?

Scientists. Scientists know. Also most people with common sense, because that is literally impossible.

It is, because it's still there. We can see it.

There is not.

They've ready been done and proven. You need to experiment and provide evidence for your rapidly fluctuating nitrogen compond/bio shield theory. 

You really seem to want to kill those fish, because you keep saying that over and over. Please don't kill those poor fish.

Protective bubble -- funny. 🙂. No, re-read what I said above.

The basic argument in those other links is "We didn't see a reduction in ammonia and we don't know of any mechanism through which Prime could be working."  That's it.  If you go through those thread, the majority are making the same arguments that I am.  Also, those failing to detect ammonia through testing are only claiming that. They (mostly) aren't claiming what you are claiming -- that Prime doesn't work.

I'd encourage everyone to read through the above links to see what I'm talking about.

You seem to be slipping into ad hominem attacks (and various other logical fallacies).  Please be careful -- we don't want another thread locked.

Bottom line -- as mentioned in the link above -- you'd really need in-vivio testing to attempt to "prove" Seachem wrong.  You might be so invested in be correct that you are letting it cloud your vision.

p.s.  Nowhere in the above discussion did I claim that Prime actually works for protecting fish from ammonia. 🙂

Edited August 11, 2023 by Galabar

[RennjiDK]

On 8/11/2023 at 2:16 AM, Galabar said:

Protective bubble -- funny. 🙂. No, re-read what I said above.

The basic argument in those other links is "We didn't see a reduction in ammonia and we don't know of any mechanism through which Prime could be working."  That's it.  If you go through those thread, the majority are making the same arguments that I am.  Also, those failing to detect ammonia through testing are only claiming that. They (mostly) aren't claiming what you are claiming -- that Prime doesn't work.

I'd encourage everyone to read through the above links to see what I'm talking about.

You seem to be slipping into ad hominem attacks (and various other logical fallacies).  Please be careful -- we don't want another thread locked.

Bottom line -- as mentioned in the link above -- you'd really need in-vivio testing to attempt to "prove" Seachem wrong.  You might be so invested in be correct that you are letting it cloud your vision.

p.s.  Nowhere in the above discussion did I claim that Prime actually works for protecting fish from ammonia. 🙂

No, they are not. Every single chemist on that thread agrees that it does not work. The only people who disagree (and very few I might add) are hobbyists like yourself who cannot get over the fact that a company would print false claims on a label, just to sell more product. In fact, your specific argument gets called out by Randy himself.

Edited August 11, 2023 by RennjiDK

[Galabar]

Look closely at those two statements.  What is statement A saying and what is statement B responding to?  Does statement B refer to what statement A is actually claiming?

Folks, read through those threads. 🙂

Edited August 11, 2023 by Galabar

[OnlyGenusCaps]

On 8/10/2023 at 10:47 PM, RennjiDK said:

At this point I'm just going to stop responding

How wonderful to hear.  I fully support your decision.  *Even if you have now reconsidered and edited this part of your comment out.*

@Galabar, so it seems a generally respectful discussion can be had about filtration, but perhaps not on the "hot button issue" of Prime.  🤣  In all seriousness, this was a wonderful social experiment in addition to being a good discussion topic! Plus, as someone who enjoys thinking about and discussing filtration, it's nice to know that filtration generally seems to get people less red faced these days.  Thanks for starting this topic! 

[Guppysnail]

Topic closed as negativity towards others. All further dechlorinator discussion from this thread needs to be done through direct message.