PDA

View Full Version : Bacterial Diversity Methods


mhaith
04/06/2010, 09:58 AM
Assuming Bacterial Diversity in our tanks is a good thing............

and assuming a variety of bacterial strains not only consume a variety of organics but the animals in our tanks have evolved to consume/coexist with certain strains of bacteria.

Over a period of time, as with any ecosystem, certain bacterial strains dominate. With the recent focus on carbon dosing to increase the size of bacterial populations, the selective process would be accelerated, resulting in higher populatioins yet fewer strains of bacteria.

I can’t help but believe we are accelerating mono-cultures within our tanks..especially mature tanks where we don’t have the space or inclination to add new items with their bacterial hitchhikers into our tanks.

What are the best methods of inoculating new bacterial strains into our systems?

I guess ‘factory grown’ bacterial strains provided by Zeo, Prodibio, MB7 might be a solution but I doubt it will provide the diversity sand, live rock or even a new organism will provide.

I have considered ‘trading’ pieces of live rock on a regular to place in my sump for a period of time to inoculate the tank with new bacterial strains. Assuming the bacteria will migrate off the rock and into the system, what would be the preferred amount of time and method to insure proper inoculation?

Any other ideas of maintaining biodiversity or am I overreacting?

philbo32
04/06/2010, 11:34 AM
IMO your overreacting. If you used live rock in your system then the right bacteria will be there. Plus any bacteria required by the organisms in your tank will already be with or on your organisms unless you breed them and keep the eggs/offspring in a sterile environment (which a reef tank is not a sterile environment). The term monoculture in the case of bacteria in any environment is rare if not impossible unless using laboratory techniques and specialised equipment. Bacteria are extremely resistant and will adjust to changing conditions especially given there short life cycle. Adding 'foreign' bacteria won't harm your tank but might not do anything in the long run and probably less likely to adjust and survive compared to the original bacteria in your system.

Why are you questioning the quality of the bacteria in your system? Have you had any problems with water quality? I have dosed grown bacteria in fermenters which have originated from my own tank to boost bacteria numbers. This was done whilst starting carbon dosing and to help get rid of cyano which compete for the same carbon source.

mhaith
04/06/2010, 05:08 PM
Perhaps mono-culture was a misnomer. Is there a dispute that biodiversity decreases within a closed system?

The topic is not so much quantity of bacteria as much as diversity. I am operating under the assumption that a variety of strains is preferable in a healthy ecosystem. Do you disagree?

elegance coral
04/06/2010, 07:55 PM
I am operating under the assumption that a variety of strains is preferable in a healthy ecosystem. Do you disagree?

I'm not philbo32, who I agree with by the way, but I would like to take a stab at your question.

We all have a variety of microbes in our systems. As the tank matures, some microbes will flourish and others will lose the battle for dominance and die off, or simply eek out an existence. It's through this battle for dominance that we acquire bacteria populations that are well suited to the conditions of our system. This is what makes for a stable environment. Adding microbes, simply for the sake of biodiversity, disrupts this stability. We see this in environments all over the world, where non-native species are introduced into a stable environment. We want stable systems, with microbial populations that have reached a balance with the system. Adding foreign microbes simply causes the microbial populations to fluctuate. Biodiversity sounds great, but it's not always a good thing. Most of us run mixed reefs to some extent. Within the first year or so, we typically add organisms from many different types of environments and from many different locations around the world. This is the time when our systems are typically unstable. We add a vast amount of biodiversity during this time simply by stocking our tanks. At some point, new additions typically decrease, and biodiversity among microbes decreases. Many people view this as a bad thing. IMHO, it is a good thing. This is the point where the strong survive and the weak don't. I'd rather have fewer species of strong, well adapted, microbes, than many different species all competing for resources causing the populations to fluctuate, and instability within the system.

BadSquishy
04/06/2010, 10:32 PM
I'm relatively new to the forum and to the hobby for that matter, so my opinion is just that, I don't claim any great experience or depth of direct knowledge.

First, I don't believe it is practically possible to control enough of the inputs to achieve balance and stability in any but the very simplest closed systems, much less an isolated, but not closed system such as a reef tank. There too few metrics by which we can assess the "state" of the system. Sure we can measure some very basic parameters and we can exercise some gross control but nothing close to ensuring bacterial stability.

Population growth is typically non-linear and with even a few contributing terms, chaotic. Boom, bust, random pulse profiles are common. The size the system, affects the period of fluctuation and contributes to cycle extinction. "Successful" organisms are in no way excused from participation in these cycles and often show the highest fluctuations.

Cut off the deep water flows, bringing both food and bacterial diversity, to a coral reef - and the resulting stripping outflows, and the ecosystem would change dramatically from the natural open reef. Stripping is every bit as important as input. Close off a section of reef, feed and measure water parameters as we do and I suspect it would be very different, less diverse and healthy, in a very short time.

So I tend to agree with mhaith, "that biodiversity decreases within a closed system" and further that frequest stripping and replenishment of bacterial diversity tends to increase overall stability in small isolated systems.

So ultimately his/her question as to what is the best way to inoculate our systems with diverse strains (and I might add, cull established strains) of bacteria is really an excellent question. At my very shallow level of experience, I have learned the importance of frequent water changes (stripping) and to use my nose as a limited but useful tool for detecting some bacterial imbalances.

Agathos
04/07/2010, 03:42 AM
If the assumption that microbial diversity is gradually lost as the tank matures, I believe it becomes increasingly difficult to increase diversity through adding complex cultures to the tank at later stages. This is because the mature tank contains large populations of microorganisms that have already proven themselves in competition with many others when the tank was started and diversity flourished. These are the organisms that thrive under the specific conditions given by the tank environment. Adding some new live rocks with microbial diversity will not change this, the new microorganisms will have much harder competition now facing the established large "monocultures".

orthokardia
04/07/2010, 04:14 AM
Is anyone aware of lab quality studies that have followed bacterial ratios over time in home sized reefs? BTW-Great thread.

-bart

capnfritz
04/07/2010, 05:12 AM
Exellent thread. For years it's been my opinion that once the chemistry is consistent, bacteria are the driving force in aquaria. I have tried various methods to validate, but unfortunately no concrete results so far. Hopefully this thread will stay up for a while and some biologists will join in.
i'm running a DT and a "control" tank with what I hope is a mixed bacterial population and results have been encouraging, sofar.

mhaith
04/07/2010, 09:23 AM
I'm not philbo32, who I agree with by the way, but I would like to take a stab at your question.

We all have a variety of microbes in our systems. As the tank matures, some microbes will flourish and others will lose the battle for dominance and die off, or simply eek out an existence. It's through this battle for dominance that we acquire bacteria populations that are well suited to the conditions of our system. This is what makes for a stable environment. Adding microbes, simply for the sake of biodiversity, disrupts this stability. We see this in environments all over the world, where non-native species are introduced into a stable environment. We want stable systems, with microbial populations that have reached a balance with the system. Adding foreign microbes simply causes the microbial populations to fluctuate. Biodiversity sounds great, but it's not always a good thing. Most of us run mixed reefs to some extent. Within the first year or so, we typically add organisms from many different types of environments and from many different locations around the world. This is the time when our systems are typically unstable. We add a vast amount of biodiversity during this time simply by stocking our tanks. At some point, new additions typically decrease, and biodiversity among microbes decreases. Many people view this as a bad thing. IMHO, it is a good thing. This is the point where the strong survive and the weak don't. I'd rather have fewer species of strong, well adapted, microbes, than many different species all competing for resources causing the populations to fluctuate, and instability within the system.

That's a very interesting answer and not one that I expected. If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that the microbes that should be present and survive will remain strongly seated absent of any events which might kill off, through 'unnatural inputs' such as anti-bacterials like cyano-killers, (which might just be the worst thing one could add to their system and an entirely different thread), creating stability? Stability is a great goal in the short term but.....

Your position does make sense towards stability during a certain stage of a system's lifecycle. However I am of the current opinion that as the lifecycle of a closed system matures, it will result in eventually a crash or at least a 'crisis' of the dominant species that will threaten the entire system or at least result, as resources are in more demand, a total dominance by fewer and fewer species as they crowd out the weaker species.

Wouldn't continued diversity aid in the constant evolution and health of an ecosystem despite the struggles and fluctuations that come with it?

Randy Holmes-Farley
04/07/2010, 09:36 AM
Assuming Bacterial Diversity in our tanks is a good thing............

Personally, I've not heard a convincing rational for thinking that more diverse bacteria is clearly better.

I don't see massive bacterial die off as a substantial concern. If it happens, and I do not know if it ever has happened in any reef tank, anywhere, new ones will rapidly grow back. I expect there will be lots of natural evolution of species and populations whether we want it to happen or not, based on the changes in the system we cause by adding bacteria with foods, organsims, water, etc, and by changing tank conditions in lots of ways.

This sounds to me like a solution looking for a problem that may or may not really exist.

Agathos
04/07/2010, 12:38 PM
Hopefully this thread will stay up for a while and some biologists will join in.

I'm a bacterial geneticist with extensive experience in microbiology.

mhaith
04/07/2010, 01:04 PM
I'm a bacterial geneticist with extensive experience in microbiology.

In an above post you state it 'very difficult' to challenge the 'mono-cultures' which makes total sense and makes the solution to a lack of biodiversity a challenge.

However, that being said, per Randy's comment, is a lack of biodiversity a problem even needing a solution?

Isn't 'mono-cultures' one on of the primary theories of 'Old Tank Syndrome?

Agathos
04/07/2010, 01:28 PM
In an above post you state it 'very difficult' to challenge the 'mono-cultures' which makes total sense and makes the solution to a lack of biodiversity a challenge.

However, that being said, per Randy's comment, is a lack of biodiversity a problem even needing a solution?

I really don't know. The reason one ends up with less diversity is that the bacteria and other microorganisms less adapted to the tank environment will be out-competed by the ones that are able to thrive under the specific conditions that our highly artificial reef tanks offer. In other words, we are left with those that are really good at making use of the nutrients at offer in the tanks, grow and multiply, while not being killed off by others. One would think that this is good for the tank, after all one wants a healthy population of microorganisms to serve as our biological filter, and to act as food for other lifeforms.

One problem I can think of -- but I don't know how relevant it is -- is that if the bacterial flora of the tank is dominated by a very few species, rather than many different species, the tank would be more at risk if something happened to this specific species' population. In other words, if your biological filter relies on one or a few species' population, sudden mass death of these species could have detrimental effects on the water quality of the tank, and hence other lifeforms. One might also envisage a situation where one species makes up the majority of bacteria in the tank. If this dies, for instance from some antibiotics produced by another organism added to the tank, or from some unfavourable shift in tank parameters, or something else, this could potentially have very bad consequences for the tank. I don't know how likely this is, though.

I do believe that diversity is lost, from probably a few hundred different bacterial species to perhaps half of that or less, as tanks mature. The biggest change, I would think, would be that a few species start to dominate, while the other species are kept in smaller populations. So it's more of a shift in population sizes, than out-right decimation of species. At least, that's what I would believe.

Investigating this could be done in different ways, from the rather inaccurate method of plating out bacteria on non-selective plates and counting the diversity to accurate methods of DNA sequencing metagenomic material from the tank. It would cost, though.

My prior point is that IF the case is that diversity is lost, I don't think it would be easy to stop this process. Our tanks offer a very specific chemical environment which will select for specific species. The chemical environment in nature is much more diverse, and will support much more microbial diversity. One can always try to seed mature tanks with diverse microbial cultures, but unless one add a substantial amount of new "diversified" bacteria, the newcomers will rapidly loose the fight for nutritions with the old-timers who have established themselves in the tank. And if one decides to add a large amount of new bacteria to increase the diversity for a long period, this would only lead to microbial die-off experienced in cycling of new tanks. And this is not something that most people want.

capnfritz
04/07/2010, 03:27 PM
Just IMO, I would think it's better to drive your system with as much diversity as you can.
Particularly bacteriologicaly. My guess is "old tank syndrome" is when this basic foundation is out of equilibrium. Further, many crashes, blooms and so on. Could it be ( for instance) that the weakening of the fishes immune system and the appearance of ick, could be traced back to an abnormal bacteriological basis?
A better understanding of these basic things, would boost our sucess in our hobby.

BadSquishy
04/07/2010, 03:28 PM
Yep, given another perspective and doing a bit more reading, I once again have to abandon preconceived notions and admit I've adopted an attractive but probably wrong position. Oh well so what elese is new. ;)

"Personally, I've not heard a convincing rational for thinking that more diverse bacteria is clearly better."

Your right, this was an assumption made without foundation or supporting evidence, and a less rather than more diverse bacterial population is reported in healthy coral environments. Diseased environments generally show greater diversity in bacterial strains but it is unclear if this is causal, symptomatic or perhaps a little of both.

"I don't see massive bacterial die off as a substantial concern. If it happens, and I do not know if it ever has happened in any reef tank, anywhere, new ones will rapidly grow back."

Absent some significant external event, (chemical poisoning, ph flux, radical temperature swing, antbiotic etc.) aerobic autotrophs populations would appear to remain relatively stable provided a controlled nutrient source and environment...agreed.

As far as heterotrophic bacteria populations go I still see potential for blooms causing significant problems.

elegance coral
04/07/2010, 07:30 PM
That's a very interesting answer and not one that I expected. If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that the microbes that should be present and survive will remain strongly seated absent of any events which might kill off, through 'unnatural inputs' such as anti-bacterials like cyano-killers, (which might just be the worst thing one could add to their system and an entirely different thread), creating stability? Stability is a great goal in the short term but.....

Your position does make sense towards stability during a certain stage of a system's lifecycle. However I am of the current opinion that as the lifecycle of a closed system matures, it will result in eventually a crash or at least a 'crisis' of the dominant species that will threaten the entire system or at least result, as resources are in more demand, a total dominance by fewer and fewer species as they crowd out the weaker species.

Wouldn't continued diversity aid in the constant evolution and health of an ecosystem despite the struggles and fluctuations that come with it?

We can look at other closed, or semi-closed, systems around the world, like caves and islands, to show what happens when we add "biodiversity" to small stable systems. Look at Easter Island. It was once a lush forest with many different species of palm trees and an unknown number of animal species. Two new species were introduced. Humans and rats. The humans cut down the trees, and the rats ate the seeds of the trees. Today the forest and the animals it once supported are extinct. Caves can be very isolated environments with few species, but they are very stable. Some species living and evolving within the cave for hundreds of thousands of years, if not millions. Scientists that study these caves and the organisms that live there, go to great lengths to keep from adding "biodiversity" to the system. If mother nature calls upon a scientist while they are in such a cave, they don't leave their waste behind. They bag it up and take it with them when they leave. This isn't a pleasant task, but they understand the devastation that adding biodiversity to such a system can cause. Scientists studying the moons of Jupiter with a space probe, came to a dilemma at the end of the mission. They could crash the probe into one of the moons and hopefully learn something about it in the process, or crash it into the atmosphere of Jupiter causing the craft to burn up. The decision was made to crash the craft into Jupiter, because of the remote possibility of microbial life on the craft effecting microbes that may live on the moon. In other words, they didn't want to add to the "biodiversity" of the moon if there was any there.

In our systems, problems like Ick, internal parasites, RTN, STN, brown jelly, red bugs, flat worms, and many other problems, can all be linked to adding more biodiversity. These are extreme situations, but just examples of why "biodiversity" isn't something wonderful that we should all strive for. Our systems are like small islands, where the organisms, especially microbes, adapt to the environmental conditions, and the ecosystem becomes very stable. Each new addition of biodiversity creates fluctuations in microbial populations. These fluctuations may be small and insignificant in most cases, but I see no benefit of intentionally adding to the biodiversity of a healthy, well established system. Just MHO.

Agathos
04/08/2010, 02:21 AM
We can look at other closed, or semi-closed, systems around the world, like caves and islands, to show what happens when we add "biodiversity" to small stable systems. Look at Easter Island. It was once a lush forest with many different species of palm trees and an unknown number of animal species. Two new species were introduced. Humans and rats.

What you are referring to here is the addition of foreign species to established ecosystems. This might cause devastating effects when this introduced species and the local species have not co-evolved to coexist in the same ecosystem, like your examples show.

When it comes to increasing microbial diversity in diversity depleted mature reef tanks, the idea is not to add foreign microflora, but to replenish with those that have already been lost. What I fear then will happen is not a collapse of the established ecosystem, but that the introduced species will die off rapidly. They have already died off once, during the initial competition, and they will face much harder competition now when the first survivors have colonized the tank environment fully and established themselves at optimal concentration.

If we are to add foreign bacteria to a reef tank, e.g. from our local oceans, one might experience that the newcomers are better at surviving and reproducing in the reef tank, and then we would see a tumultuous shift in population sizes where the old ones will diminish while the newcomers take over. This could absolutely be bad for the tank. BUT I find it highly unlikely that foreign, local bacteria would thrive more than bacteria that entered the tank at start-up and that originated from natural reefs (came as highthikers on LS).


In our systems, problems like Ick, internal parasites, RTN, STN, brown jelly, red bugs, flat worms, and many other problems, can all be linked to adding more biodiversity.

I thought it was linked to adding specimen that is ALREADY infested, or linked to changes in tank parameters (light, temperature, water chemistry, etc) that cause outbreaks of already present pathogens.

teesquare
04/08/2010, 08:14 AM
THIS is a great thread folks!
And while there may not be any clear cut answers for or against - I think the discussion is certainly healthy.
I have always wondered about the domination of specific strains of bacteria, which initially signal "tank stability" -potentially causing a long slow decline.
In the "dark ages" of this hobby, all that mattered was conversion of ammonia to nitrate. Clearly - we did not understand enough about de-nitrification, and so on.
So - why not look further into the advantages for greater bacterial diversity? With the presumption -of course - that there are known strains of bacteria that need to be avaoided? ( Disease causing ones, and others)

T

capnfritz
04/08/2010, 09:35 AM
Saltwater covers 80% of the earths surface, so having a better understanding of bacteriological interactions would seem a win win scenario. Although coral reefs are only a small area of the oceans, I think that a comparison with a cave is unrealistic. IMO the controlling factor for reefs is location, temp. and not bac. isolation.

teesquare
04/08/2010, 10:02 AM
Interesting capnfritz-

How then do we explain the diversity of higher life - if we cannot accept that there is at least as much bio-diversity at the single cell level? Does location, and temperature encompass the total requirement for a given set of bacteria to become dominant? It seems that nature uses a "distillation" method - often called survival of the fittest.....
Thus - would there not be MANY niches occupied by multitudes of bacteria at the little known end of the aquatic envirement? It is easier for us to make assumptions based on observation (as to the overall health and success of a tank) but - here we are talking about micro-observation. I have not seen any evidence - other than each of our anecdotal visual observation.......
Anyone aware of any long term studies that would be relevant?
T

Randy Holmes-Farley
04/08/2010, 10:36 AM
One situation where I think bacterial additions may be a good idea is when you know that you have the wrong profile.

In particular, I'm referring to cyano. Once it gets well established, and especially when organic carbon dosing, it may very well be useful to add different species, assuming you can find a source that has bacteria in it that will thrive in your tank with your type of organic carbon added. :)

One potential way to do this is to get such additions from other reefers. I know that when I dose a lot of vinegar, I get lots of bacteria growing on my GAC that I periodically clean off. That white stuff (whether it is one species or hundreds of them) could easily be collected and might help seed a different aquarium that is having problems with cyano when dosing organic carbon. :)

teesquare
04/08/2010, 10:41 AM
Good point Randy! Perhaps in our near future we will have products available to us in the same vein of thinking....pro-biotics for aquariums for one.

T

mhaith
04/08/2010, 12:05 PM
One situation where I think bacterial additions may be a good idea is when you know that you have the wrong profile.

In particular, I'm referring to cyano. Once it gets well established, and especially when organic carbon dosing, it may very well be useful to add different species, assuming you can find a source that has bacteria in it that will thrive in your tank with your type of organic carbon added. :)

One potential way to do this is to get such additions from other reefers. I know that when I dose a lot of vinegar, I get lots of bacteria growing on my GAC that I periodically clean off. That white stuff (whether it is one species or hundreds of them) could easily be collected and might help seed a different aquarium that is having problems with cyano when dosing organic carbon. :)

Actually Cyano is my EXACT problem for which I am attempting to find a solution. So often, I see great tanks employing carbon dosing, that have a problem with Cyano (my own included). Randy, you are aggressively carbon dosing. Do you have Cyano and if not, can I please arrange to get a vial of white goop? Maybe we can market it as Randy's White Goop and make our fortune:D

On another note, and I may be a masochist but I am fascinated with this theoretical discussion on the benefits and/or liabilities of ecosystem diversity.

It would seem that caves are the perfect example of a balanced, yet fragile and tenuous ecosystem. Wouldn't this be due to a lack of biodiversity and the prevelance of organisms that have dominated without the ongoing influx of competitive pressures? Should that be the long-term goal for our systems or am I thinking too far into the future?

My question keeps coming back to the fact that: yeah, in the short term, a balanced, highly specialized system is desirable but wouldn't a diverse ecosystem with smaller on-going bacterial 'disruptions' be preferrable to 'putting all our eggs in one basket'?

teesquare
04/08/2010, 04:00 PM
My initial response would be YES - in favor of bio diversity.
But....it would still need to be nutured, and supplimented with "refreshing" doses of given cultures.

So, it seems to me that we would still want or find it desireable to do so in a more knowing manner, lest we have more problems to tend to!

Paul B
04/08/2010, 04:17 PM
It is easier for us to make assumptions based on observation (as to the overall health and success of a tank) but - here we are talking about micro-observation. I have not seen any evidence - other than each of our anecdotal visual observation.......
Anyone aware of any long term studies that would be relevant?
T


While I am not a bacterioligist, chemist or scientist I do have a 40 year old reef that has had bacteria added from the sea every few weeks for all of that time. Just today I collected bacteria. So it may not be a scientific study, I do offer proof that it can work and I have never had OTS

teesquare
04/08/2010, 04:23 PM
Yeah - but Paul...We do not have reverse flow undergravel filters. We could not possibly compare to that!:lol:

Just kidding Paul! Glad you joined in. What do you mean by OTS?

T

philbo32
04/08/2010, 04:52 PM
Yeah - but Paul...We do not have reverse flow undergravel filters. We could not possibly compare to that!:lol:

Just kidding Paul! Glad you joined in. What do you mean by OTS?

T

OTS = Old Tank Syndrome

teesquare
04/08/2010, 04:55 PM
Thanks Phil!

I was afraid it was something involving my mental health...oh wait...I *DO* keep fish in a glass box!!:D

T

mhaith
04/08/2010, 05:10 PM
40 years. now that's the long-term I'm talkin' bout!

teesquare
04/08/2010, 05:15 PM
Yep - I think Paul lives in a wet suit -and lives by the water, so water changes are VERY cost effective!

Spracklcat
04/08/2010, 05:19 PM
Goodness where to begin. Lots of good discussion here. As background, I am a marine microbiologist currently doing work surveying bacteria in open and closed marine systems. So:

1. Probiotics are good. There are poducts out on the market that are sort of tank-treatments, and also a very few specifically to influence the bacterial population of fish. In aquaculture there has been a ton of research into this, and to sum it up "Probiotics=Good". Remember though they are talking about animal health, not system health.

2 .While I have not done the metagenomic analysis, I have surveyed many tanks just by seeing what grows on typical and marine bacterial media, quantitatively and qualitatively. I understand that the data this gives is not complete, because not everything will grow. However, it's a good enough sample to compare tank to tank.

Almost without fail, the tank populations were different in quantity of bacteria and number of types depending on the tank inhabitants. So, an anemone-alone tank would look one way, a full reef completely different (if I become un-lazy I'll post pictures which give you a quick visual interpretation). Interestingly, systems that were fed with natural seawater that had been filtered but NOT sterilized were all different (interesting because they were getting a frequent infusion of new bacteria that should be the same for every system). Also without fail, every tank had multiple species of bacteria UNLESS there was something wrong. An example is a tank that was having chronic fish losses was a near monoculture of Vibrio.

3. Other interesting observations: the surface of a coral has a different population of bacteria than the water it sits in, and different corals in the same tank will have their own particular flora (this has been known for years, I didn't do anything new).

My opinion about diversity: First think about the way you are applying the product--it's going into the water column, which is already pretty diverse. The workhorse bacteria of the system are going to be in biofilms on surfaces and beneath surfaces. So, can you directly inoculate that? Not really. So I don't think adding a bacterial supplement will cause any long-term change in an established system.

Bacterial additives may be useful for two things:

1. The old carbon dosing. Theoretically there is no reason carbon dosing should work, yet it seems to. Adding bacteria to utilize that carbon may speed things up.

2. A "sick" system may benefit from the addition of bacteria to outcompete pathogens.

--Christine

GreshamH
04/08/2010, 05:29 PM
Ahh you found this Christine. I meant to email both you and Gary to join this one :D

philbo32
04/08/2010, 05:46 PM
Perhaps mono-culture was a misnomer. Is there a dispute that biodiversity decreases within a closed system?

The topic is not so much quantity of bacteria as much as diversity. I am operating under the assumption that a variety of strains is preferable in a healthy ecosystem. Do you disagree?

Do you have proof that the biodiversity you add from so called live rock decreases within a closed environment. IME after you add live rock you get an explosion of species from it, as a lot of the living organisms originally on the rock die due to long transportation times from natural environment (without fresh or flowing seawater in a sealed bag/box) plus cold temperatures during shipping, then most LFS sell you the live rock and place it in a bag with no water which encourages more die off. Your left with a small number of species which actually survive the journey and a lot of spores to start the next generation.

There are a lot of bacteria in natural sea water (around 20,000 species of bacteria per litre; source = http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5232928.stm ) and around a million cells of bacteria per drop (source = http://www.jstor.org/pss/2834324 ) and theres a large number of bacteria which can produce endospores which allows the bacteria to stay in a dormant state, bacteria can survive for a very long time (millions of years) in this state.

Most micro-organisms have very good survival strategies, and until someone monitors what bacterial strains are in a tank and what dormant endospores are in there I do not think it is possible to get rid of large numbers of bacteria from your closed system. There will be fluctuations in the population dynamics of the species within your system as there is in nature. Bacteria are very adaptable and can withstand a wide variety of different and changing conditions.

Bacteria can still colonise your fish tank even if you do not use live rock, just adding fish and the water from your LFS will innoculate your system with enough aerobic nitrifying, organic and anaerobic bacteria to completely cycle your tank, this has been seen in FO systems.

The reef tank has many niches within it and food sources that it will allow a variety of microorganisms to fluorish together each having a preference for certain molecules. Bacteria can also evolve quickly in closed systems to breakdown a new type food source.


So to answer your questions; yes there is a dispute that biodiversity decreases in closed systems, although I have not seen any evidence to support either theory.

I agree a variety of strains is preferable. Are you talking about strains of bacteria or species? There will be a large variety of bacterial strains in your system and a number of species.

GreshamH
04/08/2010, 06:12 PM
http://www.manhattanreefs.com/forum/advanced-reefs/17495-bacterial-analysis.html

Shaun did a study but it never got published on the net, it was done in a talk at one of the MR fragswaps. I was there and IIRC he found very few strains and very little bacteria in the water column, well relative to what is found in the ocean itself.

http://zeovit.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5770

That thread is by Gary who I'll push to post in this thread :)

philbo32
04/08/2010, 06:21 PM
[QUOTE=GreshamH;16920994]http://www.manhattanreefs.com/forum/advanced-reefs/17495-bacterial-analysis.html

Shaun did a study but it never got published on the net, it was done in a talk at one of the MR fragswaps. I was there and IIRC he found very few strains and very little bacteria in the water column, well relative to what is found in the ocean itself. [QUOTE]

I would love to see the methods and results for this experiment, do you know what method was used for detecting bacteria? Plus where aboutst were the samples taken from the tank? I would expect less bacteria in the water column compared to the biofilm on the surfaces of decor in the tank.

Paul B
04/08/2010, 06:27 PM
Yeah - but Paul...We do not have reverse flow undergravel filters.
We all can't have perfect tanks. :D

A "sick" system may benefit from the addition of bacteria to outcompete pathogens.


I also agree with this. Again I only have to offer my experience from my tank.
I don't know if it has anything to do with it but my fish do not ever experience any diseases including paracites. (some of them are almost 20 years old) This sounds odd to many people due to the fact that I add local NY mud, water and flora and fauna almost every week right from the sea with no quarantining or treatment of any type.
I am not speaking of 3 or 4 years, I am speaking decades.
I can and do often add fish with obvious ick and invariably the fish will either die or become cured but never has any other fish contracted the paracite.
I add bacteria by collecting mud from the Long Island Sound and place it in a container in the tank. A small amount of the mud I inject right into my UG filter. I remove the container in a few days.
A few years ago there was a study called Biosphere or something like that where they sealed in the dome various species from different areas to see if it would prosper with no outside influences. (I am sure you know of it)
It failed. Weeds took over much of the farm areas and ants replaced much of the insect life.
I believe the bacteria in a long running tank will do the same thing.
All of the surfaces in a reef are covered in bacteria but I doubt all of those types of bacteria will work for us.
I am sure many of them do not convert anything useful for us although they may be dominant strains of bacteria. That is the reason I believe and always have that an old tank need infusions of "fresh" bacteria from the sea. Not from a LFS because those bacteria will have gone through much of what a tank goes through and not from another reefers tank for the same reason.
So to sum it up, I may be completely off here, but this is my experience and as far as I know there are no very old tanks that do not add bacteria from the sea to study.

teesquare
04/08/2010, 06:55 PM
Your observations concur with mine Paul. Of course, you have 10 years on me:rollface:

Agathos
04/09/2010, 03:06 AM
I still have a hard time understanding that adding a relatively small volume of "fresh" bacteria to a much larger tank volume with mature and established bacterial ecosystems will have much effect exept to cause die-off of the newcomers. ONLY if they are better equipped at utilizing the tank's available nutrition and reproduces more quickly than the oldtimers (or if the produce an antibiotic that affect the oldtimers), will they be able to establish themselves as a dominant species in the tank.

Most likely, if the newcomers are the same species that where found in the tank at initial startup and ultimately lost against the oldtimers, they will fail again.

The idea of probiotics is to add a beneficial microorganism to a system where it will be of temporary use. For instance adding bacteria to improve gut flora in humans. These will not established themselves permanently, if so we would probably already have them there! So the only way adding bacteria to established tanks with a stable bacterial ecosystem in the hope that their biochemistry would somehow affect the tank positively, will succeed, is if this is done repeatedly, like Paul B apparently does with good effect.

For tanks that DON'T have a stable bacterial ecosystem newcomers may actually thrive, because there is some non-utilized, or sub-optimally utilized, source of energy available. So if OTS (old tank syndrome) is a reality (that old tanks experience a weakening of bacterial ecosystem stability) then new bacteria added may establish themselves permanently and even become a major species in the tank, to the benefit of the bacterial ecosystem and its other inhabitants.

In general the bacterial ecosystems in tanks should be stable, so OTS should not be an issue. But I can imagine that different remedies we add to the tanks which are not supposed to harm the bacterial flora may affect the different bacterial species differently, causing instability in the ecosystem. I can also imagine that accidental fluxations in water chemistry, temperature, etc, will affect some species and strains more than others, resulting in loss of stability. In such cases, where a biochemical niche has been opened up, newcomers may establish themselves permanently to the benefit of the tank.

Agathos
04/09/2010, 03:27 AM
Double post, please delete this.

Paul B
04/09/2010, 04:38 AM
Do bacteria suffer after a long period of inbreeding as animals do?
I don't know, but if that is the case, new bacteria would possably help re colonize the tank.
Would the bacteria that were initially started in my tank in 1972 still be re producing?
Just a theory.

Agathos
04/09/2010, 04:57 AM
Do bacteria suffer after a long period of inbreeding as animals do?

No, they reproduce asexually creating almost identical clones of themselves.


Would the bacteria that were initially started in my tank in 1972 still be re producing?Just a theory.

If they were well adapted to your tank when they were first introduced, and the tank has not changed a lot, yes. The chances are very high that your tank now contains descendants of the bacteria that was introduced initially.

I don't know what bacteria are prevalent in reef tanks, but a fairly common marine bacteria is Vibrio natriegens. This is actually the fastest growing bacteria I am aware of. Under ideal conditions it can divide every 11 minutes! (Ideal conditions means that everything it needs for growth and division is available in excess, of course such conditions over time are only found in artificial labs environments.) If this bacterium is in your tank and has been there since the start, (this is pure guesswork from my side), and we say that it has divided every 120 minutes rather than every 11 minutes (since the conditions are far from ideal), what you have now in your tank is the 166440th generation of this organism :). (Lots of generation for adaptive evolution, so the descendants could quite well be evolved to fit your tank better, let's call it Vibrio paulius. Actually, that is probably more generations than what we humans so far have been through since our species came to be).

capnfritz
04/09/2010, 05:03 AM
My initial response would be YES - in favor of bio diversity.
But....it would still need to be nutured, and supplimented with "refreshing" doses of given cultures.

So, it seems to me that we would still want or find it desireable to do so in a more knowing manner, lest we have more problems to tend to!

Thats my point exactly.

Agathos
04/09/2010, 05:09 AM
Off topic elaboration on bacteria and inbreeding:

Inbreeding is what happens when closely related individuals reproduce sexually, e.g. by sharing genes. Closely related individuals have a higher probablility of sharing some detrimental allele (gene copy that is usually masked by a "healthy" gene copy). Offspring of such matings could results in two copies of "sick" allele and no copies of the "healthy" allele, resulting in different problems. That's why you shouldn't have children with your siblings, or cousings, and why in most cultures this is regarded as taboo.

Bacteria do not breed at all, they reproduce through asexual division, or "cloning". So offspring will, in theory, by identical to their parent. If the parent enjoys a specific reef tank, the progeny should, too. They are all equally genetically equipped to thrive under those conditions. There is no degradation of the genetic material in the population (inbreeding does not cause "degradation of the genepool, either, just unfortunate combinations of specific alleles).

Agathos
04/09/2010, 05:14 AM
Thats my point exactly.

I have some colleagues that work on studying bacterial populations in marine environments. I could talk to them and hear how much it would cost to add samples from reefs to their current work. Ideally we should follow the fate of one reef tank from set-up and through the years, but it could also be interesting to see the differences between a handful reef tanks with different age, to see if there's a general trend that older reefs contain less bacterial diversity.

More technically, what this study would involve is cloning of DNA from the reef tank (free DNA would be found everywhere, and can easily be amplified) and then sequence this DNA in an effort to establish what species it originates from. Such methods not only identify the bacteria present, but can also be used to quantify relative numbers of different species.

mhaith
04/09/2010, 08:52 AM
I have some colleagues that work on studying bacterial populations in marine environments. I could talk to them and hear how much it would cost to add samples from reefs to their current work. Ideally we should follow the fate of one reef tank from set-up and through the years, but it could also be interesting to see the differences between a handful reef tanks with different age, to see if there's a general trend that older reefs contain less bacterial diversity.

More technically, what this study would involve is cloning of DNA from the reef tank (free DNA would be found everywhere, and can easily be amplified) and then sequence this DNA in an effort to establish what species it originates from. Such methods not only identify the bacteria present, but can also be used to quantify relative numbers of different species.

What would be quite interesting is to also track some of the specific traits of each tank to identify beneficial bacterial strains that can outcompete cyano or specifically consume some of the nasties in our tanks.
Just think, a bacterial dose(s) that specifically targets flatworms, ich, etc.?

(Maybe if we can identify specific commercial viability, funding will appear?)

cmbspd
04/09/2010, 09:37 AM
While technically correct that bacteria don't reproduce sexually, bacteria actually trade quite a lot genes among clones and even "species". This happens through viral infections and also specific behaviors, called conjugation, where bacteria trade small fragments of DNA called plasmids that contain one or a few genes. This helps to explain how antibiotic resistant traits can quickly spread across a population of bacteria.

It is also a potential mechanism by which introducing a new bacterial culture could influence much of the tank community without necessarily reaching high levels. You could easily be introducing a gene for a utilizing some nutrient that the existing bacteria cannot metabolize for instance.

Bacteria also have very high mutation rates so that it doesn't take too many generations before "clones" are genetically distinguishable from their parents. And with bacteria, generation times are in tens of minutes!


Off topic elaboration on bacteria and inbreeding:

Inbreeding is what happens when closely related individuals reproduce sexually, e.g. by sharing genes. Closely related individuals have a higher probablility of sharing some detrimental allele (gene copy that is usually masked by a "healthy" gene copy). Offspring of such matings could results in two copies of "sick" allele and no copies of the "healthy" allele, resulting in different problems. That's why you shouldn't have children with your siblings, or cousings, and why in most cultures this is regarded as taboo.

Bacteria do not breed at all, they reproduce through asexual division, or "cloning". So offspring will, in theory, by identical to their parent. If the parent enjoys a specific reef tank, the progeny should, too. They are all equally genetically equipped to thrive under those conditions. There is no degradation of the genetic material in the population (inbreeding does not cause "degradation of the genepool, either, just unfortunate combinations of specific alleles).

Paul B
04/09/2010, 10:17 AM
If this dies, for instance from some antibiotics produced by another organism added to the tank, or from some unfavourable shift in tank parameters, or something else, this could potentially have very bad consequences for the tank. I don't know how likely this is, though.


I think it is very likely in many tanks. Especially older tanks. I have personally used Chemi Clean and Red Slime remover many times over the years. Red Slime remover is basically an antibiotic that would tend to kill (or weaken) some but not all types of bacteria. Also in the beginning the tank had copper in it continousely for a couple of years. If any of you remember, before reef tanks, ich was very prevelant and we used copper extensively. I am not sure what that did to the bacterial diversity but I would imagine it could shift the numbers of dominent bacteria to a different type that was more resistant to copper or an antibiotic.
In that case, I would assume adding "wild" bacteria from the sea "may" have a positive effect.
Do any of you have a theory as to why ich does not seem to effect my tank, could bacterial additions possably have anything to do with that?

ctripi
04/09/2010, 10:28 AM
Could any of the microbiolgists comment regarding the risk/benefits of carbon dosing ? If this is off topic please disregard.

My thoughts that this might result in a fragile situation favoring a narrow spectrum of bacterial species. This seems hazardous and potentiates those tanks for crash if husbandry is less than perfect. I mean, dosing carbon sources to help with nutrient issues already suggests less than biologically-balanced husbandry right?

Might I also risk disagreeing with Randy regarding risk of die-off. My understanding that a die-off, aside from leading to a cycling of sort, liberates endo/exotoxins that might again promote whole tank distress in various ways.

Agathos
04/09/2010, 10:31 AM
What would be quite interesting is to also track some of the specific traits of each tank to identify beneficial bacterial strains that can outcompete cyano or specifically consume some of the nasties in our tanks.
Just think, a bacterial dose(s) that specifically targets flatworms, ich, etc.?

(Maybe if we can identify specific commercial viability, funding will appear?)

I don't know if this would be possible. Cyanobacteria are especially adapted to thrive under very specific conditions. Under these very specific conditions cyano bacteria are the bacteria that will grow and dominate. The best way to change this is to make the conditions less suitable for cyanos and more suitable for the bacteria you want. So out-competition of cyano under conditions where cyano are evolved to function optimally, I think could be hard. What we do instead is change the water chemistry (adjust concentrations of phosphates, nitrates, etc) to make the environment slightly less suitable for cyano and slightly more suitable for the beneficial bacteria, causing a shift in population sizes where the cyano population again becomes small and negligible.

When it comes to bacteria that targets other organisms, like flatworms and other parasites, the only way I can see this happen is not as a form of direct competition, but through production of chemicals that are toxic to them and only them, e.g. antibiotics. Unfortunately, most antibiotics are broad-range (and would effect other beneficiary members of our tanks) or highly selective to target other organisms that compete for the same resources, in other words other microorganisms that occupy niches overlapping with the bacteria's (parasites unfortunately do not fit this criteria).

Agathos
04/09/2010, 10:34 AM
While technically correct that bacteria don't reproduce sexually, bacteria actually trade quite a lot genes among clones and even "species". This happens through viral infections and also specific behaviors, called conjugation, where bacteria trade small fragments of DNA called plasmids that contain one or a few genes. This helps to explain how antibiotic resistant traits can quickly spread across a population of bacteria.

Yes, and I would love to discuss this in more detail since I have been working with broad-host-range plasmids on my PhD. I actually wrote a paragraph about this in my former post but deleted it since I saw it slightly off topic :).


It is also a potential mechanism by which introducing a new bacterial culture could influence much of the tank community without necessarily reaching high levels. You could easily be introducing a gene for a utilizing some nutrient that the existing bacteria cannot metabolize for instance.

Yes, this is possible, and it's an intriguing thought.


Bacteria also have very high mutation rates so that it doesn't take too many generations before "clones" are genetically distinguishable from their parents. And with bacteria, generation times are in tens of minutes!

Hence Vibrio paulius.

Agathos
04/09/2010, 10:40 AM
I think it is very likely in many tanks. Especially older tanks. I have personally used Chemi Clean and Red Slime remover many times over the years. Red Slime remover is basically an antibiotic that would tend to kill (or weaken) some but not all types of bacteria. Also in the beginning the tank had copper in it continousely for a couple of years. If any of you remember, before reef tanks, ich was very prevelant and we used copper extensively. I am not sure what that did to the bacterial diversity but I would imagine it could shift the numbers of dominent bacteria to a different type that was more resistant to copper or an antibiotic.
In that case, I would assume adding "wild" bacteria from the sea "may" have a positive effect.

I think you are completely right. This would be analogous to taking probiotics after being treated with penicillins so as to inoculate your stomach with good bacteria again.


Do any of you have a theory as to why ich does not seem to effect my tank, could bacterial additions possably have anything to do with that?

It's hard to say. One thought is that good bacteria that normally colonizes the fish skin might be absent and this would help ich to infest the fish. If these bacteria don't really enjoy life in reef tanks, they may be lost over time, opening up for skin parasites. And a remedy could be to continuously add them to the tank. But if so, ich should be more prevalent the older the tank is, and I don't know if that is true. But it could be a similar mechanisms, so yes, it's plausible. Another explanation is also that you treat your fish very well :).

Agathos
04/09/2010, 10:56 AM
Could any of the microbiolgists comment regarding the risk/benefits of carbon dosing ? If this is off topic please disregard.

My thoughts that this might result in a fragile situation favoring a narrow spectrum of bacterial species. This seems hazardous and potentiates those tanks for crash if husbandry is less than perfect. I mean, dosing carbon sources to help with nutrient issues already suggests less than biologically-balanced husbandry right?

Again, I am just speculating. Carbon dosing, as far as I understand this practice, is to add some carbon containing molecule that work as a good carbon source for bacteria so as to stimulate a higher population of these bacteria which will again consume nitrogen and phosphate compounds from the tank which otherwise would be toxic or promote growth of less beneficial organisms?

If so, I would think that the type of carbon molecule that is dosed has big importance. Different bacteria can import and metabolize different carbon molecules at different efficiencies. So dosing carbon compound A may promote growth of one set of bacteria, while dosing carbon compound may promote growth of an entirely different set. Dosing a compound that few bacteria have evolved to be able to catabolize will only help these to grow, while dosing with e.g. glucose may promote lots of bacteria to grow. At the same time you don't want to dose with something that stimulates growth of bad guys.

So in theory I think it is possible, boosting the biological filter is a good idea and should be possible by making the good bacteria more content (either through giving them more places to live, i.e. more rocks, more water surface area, or by giving them more food in the form of carbon) so that they reach higher concentrations, but I don't think it is trivial which carbon compound is chosen, and I am afraid that the optimal compound may actually be somewhat tank specific.

Paul B
04/09/2010, 11:24 AM
Another explanation is also that you treat your fish very well .



Well, I did stop whipping them in the 80s

ctripi
04/09/2010, 12:01 PM
There exists antecdotal reports on RC that different carbon-sources yield differing results. I think the thread suggested straight glucose was potentially detritmental for that individuals system.

Paul......I always envisioned a Vibrio spp having a NYC accent;)

Paul B
04/09/2010, 12:05 PM
Paul......I always envisioned a Vibrio spp having a NYC accent



Well my tank was originally started in NYC and the original water was collected from under the Whitestone bridge which connects the Bronx to Queens and begins the East River that passes Manhattan so, yes, maybe they do have NY accents. But you need to lean real close to the glass to hear them.

ctripi
04/09/2010, 05:25 PM
Here is the glucose thread I mentioned = Glucose additions causes cyano & algal problems in addition to coral problems.

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1781320

elegance coral
04/09/2010, 06:33 PM
When it comes to increasing microbial diversity in diversity depleted mature reef tanks, the idea is not to add foreign microflora, but to replenish with those that have already been lost.

How can we do that when we don't know what bacteria have been lost, and we would rarely know what bacteria we are adding to the system?

What I fear then will happen is not a collapse of the established ecosystem, but that the introduced species will die off rapidly. They have already died off once, during the initial competition, and they will face much harder competition now when the first survivors have colonized the tank environment fully and established themselves at optimal concentration.

I think that pretty much says it all. Why would we want to replenish bacteria that have proven their inability to survive in our system? Most of us strive to keep nutrients low. Adding microbes, knowing they will simply die and release the nutrients they contain, seems kinda counter productive to me.:hmm5:


I thought it was linked to adding specimen that is ALREADY infested, or linked to changes in tank parameters (light, temperature, water chemistry, etc) that cause outbreaks of already present pathogens.

Adding a host along with its parasite to a system that doesn't contain them would be adding to the biodiversity of the system, correct?
Maybe I should have worded my post a little better. I said these problems "can" be linked to adding biodiversity. I didn't mean to imply that these types of outbreaks are always caused by adding to the biodiversity. Most systems, probably all systems, house bad guys. As long as the system remains healthy, we may not see signs of their existence. If the health of the system plummets for some reason, we stop feeding like we should, or don't keep up with water changes, these problem microbes often show their face. This clearly isn't caused by adding to the biodiversity.

elegance coral
04/09/2010, 07:02 PM
IMHO Biodiversity is one of those things that sounds great until you really start looking into what it will, and will not, do for a system. There are countless references in aquarium literature to how wonderful biodiversity is, and how we should all constantly strive to increase it, but I have yet to find one that holds water. Our systems create jobs that must be accomplished on a microbial level for our systems to remain healthy. We need strong, numerous, and well adapted microbes to accomplish these jobs. As our systems mature, so do these microbial populations. What benefit could possibly come from throwing new, and often unknown, microbes into such a healthy and stable system??????

philbo32
04/10/2010, 05:11 AM
It's hard to say. One thought is that good bacteria that normally colonizes the fish skin might be absent and this would help ich to infest the fish. If these bacteria don't really enjoy life in reef tanks, they may be lost over time, opening up for skin parasites. And a remedy could be to continuously add them to the tank. But if so, ich should be more prevalent the older the tank is, and I don't know if that is true. But it could be a similar mechanisms, so yes, it's plausible. Another explanation is also that you treat your fish very well :).

I agree it is difficult to form any conclusions on how bacteria on fish affect whether your fish will get whitespot as to my knowledge there has been no work in this area to identify what the individual role of the bacteria that do colonize fish.

Plus a fishes immune system has a lot to do with whether the fish will get whitespot, there is a scientific study 4 years ago which looked at a vaccine to white spot this would include injecting fish with a dead stage of Cryptocaryon irritans (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T4D-4K48KG6-1&_user=10&_coverDate=09%2F29%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1289188470&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=8cc5ebadf95de1a9e252e89c80f2f347) and it worked to immunize groupers. Other studies have found fish that have recovered from white spot can become immune for 6 months and can become carriers of the disease (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WFN-45PTY64-N&_user=10&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F1995&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1289193597&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=5447fb8fdbe4c0e5a2f51cdf76aa01d2).

Another paper of a fishes resitance to Cryptocaryon irritans after it had previously been infected = http://www.int-res.com/articles/dao/1/d001p019.pdf

Paul B
04/10/2010, 06:39 AM
Philbo, interesting links, thanks.

As our systems mature, so do these microbial populations. What benefit could possibly come from throwing new, and often unknown, microbes into such a healthy and stable system??????


IMO, even healthy and stable systems could get a boost from an addition of new bacteria which may possably be better at converting nitrates. Many older systems especially systems with DSBs lose much of their nitrate converting means forcing people to change water to lower nitrates.
I understand that there are bacteria in every part of a tank but I don't think new bacteria would have a hard time working with or replacing bacteria already there. Our guts are loaded with bacteria and we could eat something with a disease causing bacteria that can make us very ill.
I am sure there are many bacteria in the sea that will out compete the bacteria already present in a tank. Even though the newcomer bacteria has far less numbers, it is not like in a war where the army with the superior numbers usually wins.
On the north east coastlines of the US, under every rock used to be green crabs. They were all over the place. About 40 years ago a Japanese ship was believed to import a species of Japanese shore crab in their ballast water.
Now there are no green crabs but under every rock there are dozens of Japanses shore crabs. These crabs are the same size and have the same diet as the resident green crabs yet a few of the alien crabs took over the entire ecosystem of the eastern US.
These new comer crabs are a little faster and a little hardier than the green crabs (I have kept them for years)
I understand that bacteria are not crabs but this was done one at a time.
Could this not happen with bacteria?

This is where these species come from. This is in NY harbor, (taken from my boat)

http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh270/urchsearch/P7170251.jpg

NyReefNoob
04/10/2010, 07:17 AM
ever think too much thought is put into our tanks, i havent gotten to go see pauls tank { hopefully will go collecting with him one year } i personally have 2 systems running, 1 sh tank and my reef tank, i do switch water from each tank back and forth, take some from sh system and put into reef and reversal as well,as well as once a month i switch out a rock from each tank. always wonder if it would help or not. not that i can say ive noticed anything. both systems are ran completely different, sh system has had 2 water changes in a yr, but is loaded with macro algea's, reef has alot as well in sump. i use to worry because i havent added anything to the sh tank since sh were added back in sept, now my reef is a revolving door of fish and corals, anyone ever tried putting a small amount of yeast in their tank ? might sound kinda dumb but alot of bacteria strains in yeast, and no i havent tried it yet but has been something ive been curious about

philbo32
04/10/2010, 07:24 AM
ever think too much thought is put into our tanks, i havent gotten to go see pauls tank { hopefully will go collecting with him one year } i personally have 2 systems running, 1 sh tank and my reef tank, i do switch water from each tank back and forth, take some from sh system and put into reef and reversal as well,as well as once a month i switch out a rock from each tank. always wonder if it would help or not. not that i can say ive noticed anything. both systems are ran completely different, sh system has had 2 water changes in a yr, but is loaded with macro algea's, reef has alot as well in sump. i use to worry because i havent added anything to the sh tank since sh were added back in sept, now my reef is a revolving door of fish and corals, anyone ever tried putting a small amount of yeast in their tank ? might sound kinda dumb but alot of bacteria strains in yeast, and no i havent tried it yet but has been something ive been curious about

Yeast doesn't contain bacterial strains, it is a separate organism to bacteria. I did used to add a few pipettes of bakers yeast in RO to my tank but didn't really see any massive improvements in livestock although I think it would help pod populations. I feed yeast and algae to enrich artemia at work before feeding to fish fry and you do see a vast improvement in the growth rates of the fry.

elegance coral
04/10/2010, 08:17 AM
IMO, even healthy and stable systems could get a boost from an addition of new bacteria which may possably be better at converting nitrates.

Or they could cause imbalance in the system. I remember a thread where you were talking about the "cycles" your tank seems to go through. Stony corals would do well for a while, then crash as softies took over. You talked about how your tank is always going through these "cycles". If I'm not mistaken, the thread was right here in the advanced forum.



Many older systems especially systems with DSBs lose much of their nitrate converting means forcing people to change water to lower nitrates.

Do they? Or is it much more likely that waste/detritus accumulates in DSB's and older systems in general, causing nutrient levels to climb? Anaerobic bacteria only have access to a portion of the nitrate produced by a system. As waste/detritus builds, nutrients from its decomposition builds, and the amount of nitrate that's not accessible by anaerobic bacteria builds.


I understand that there are bacteria in every part of a tank but I don't think new bacteria would have a hard time working with or replacing bacteria already there. Our guts are loaded with bacteria and we could eat something with a disease causing bacteria that can make us very ill.

But in the vast majority of cases, we get better. One of the reasons for our recovery is resident bacteria kicking the newly introduced bacterias but. If the disease causing bacteria was never introduced, we wouldn't have become ill in the first place. This is an example of one of the bad side effects of increasing biodiversity. It's not an example to support this practice.


I am sure there are many bacteria in the sea that will out compete the bacteria already present in a tank. Even though the newcomer bacteria has far less numbers, it is not like in a war where the army with the superior numbers usually wins.
On the north east coastlines of the US, under every rock used to be green crabs. They were all over the place. About 40 years ago a Japanese ship was believed to import a species of Japanese shore crab in their ballast water.
Now there are no green crabs but under every rock there are dozens of Japanses shore crabs. These crabs are the same size and have the same diet as the resident green crabs yet a few of the alien crabs took over the entire ecosystem of the eastern US.
These new comer crabs are a little faster and a little hardier than the green crabs (I have kept them for years)
I understand that bacteria are not crabs but this was done one at a time.
Could this not happen with bacteria?

I get what you're saying. I think the crabs are a good analogy, but no two species are exactly alike. It can be the subtle differences that cause catastrophic damage to established ecosystems. If the new crabs were just a little better at reproduction than the resident crabs, but both crabs fed on mud skippers, the mud skipper population could plummet. Shore birds that feed on mud skippers would not be able to feed their young, and their numbers could plummet. Situations like this can cause chain reactions with wide reaching implications. This is why scientist are freaking out over Lion fish in the caribbean, caulerpa in the Mediterranean, and pythons in the everglades.

Any time we add new species to healthy well established ecosystems, they will create changes. Even if those changes are small and short lived. These changes, or disruptions, in the local ecology are far more likely to cause problems than to be something we could call beneficial. If the system is already healthy and well established, why would we risk introducing new species when the likelihood of them being beneficial is slim to none?

Countries around the world spend unknown amounts of money fighting invasive species. They pass laws attempting to reduce the odds of new species being introduced into their ecosystems. There are good reasons for this.

Paul B
04/10/2010, 09:34 AM
Elegance Coral, first of all, thanks for adressing all of my points.
My theories are by no means scientific fact, they are only based on my experiences.

I remember a thread where you were talking about the "cycles" your tank seems to go through. Stony corals would do well for a while, then crash as softies took over.

Yes, I talk about cycles a lot. Most people don't notice them because they may last a couple of years. I think the cycles in my tank come more from the differences in algae and nutrients in the water than bacterial populations, but I could be wrong. Sometimes, short red algae covers all the rocks in my system and it is the same stuff that covers everything in the Long Island Sound where some of my water comes from.

Or is it much more likely that waste/detritus accumulates in DSB's and older systems in general, causing nutrient levels to climb?

That could also be the case, in any event, they don't seem to last very long even though the theory is that worms will multiply forever allowing water to reach the lower more anerobic areas. If the worm theory is correct then maybe new bacteria would be beneficial.

This is an example of one of the bad side effects of increasing biodiversity. It's not an example to support this practice

Yes bad analogy, I added it to show that a different, minority of bacteria could gain a foothold. Don't forget, in our guts, the bacteria living there is suited for that envirnment. The bad bacteria in food may not be so the gut bacteria has the advantage in that case. If I had a 40 year old strain of Long Island Sound bacteria in my tank, and I introduced new bacteria from the same area, I would assume, that some of those bacteria would have a chance to re produce and overtake the existing similar bacteria.
I, of course don't know if that would be an advantage or not.

If the new crabs were just a little better at reproduction than the resident crabs,

Maybe the added bacteria from the Sound would have advantages being the Sound goes from fairly clean 40 degree water in the winter to fairly polluted 78 degree water in the summer. Our reefs are more stable than that so I think the new bacteria would have different traits, not necessarilly bad but possably so.
I know that adding anything from the sea could cause a bad reaction and as I said, my tank is not a scientific experiment, but being the years that I have been doing this implies at least that the practice could be safe and the fact that my nitrates are very low even though I run a UG filter and rarely change water also implies that adding bacteria from the sea "may" be what is causing or allowing my nitrates to remain low.
When new drugs are tested for the public I doubt they test them for that length of time, of course I know that they test them on hundreds of people, I just don't have hundreds of tanks to test. :crazy1:

philbo32
04/10/2010, 10:02 AM
I hear what you are saying regarding your own tank but there is no way to prove that adding bacteria is doing anything in your tank because there are way too many variables which effect a reef system, and every tank is different.

Without even knowing what bacteria are in your system and what bacteria you are adding and whether the correct food source for those bacteria are there makes it near impossible to work out if it is advantagous to your system.

The only way to know whether it would be advantagous is going to take a lot of lab work and more knowledge of species to try to control all the variables and then to replicate each system many times to make is scientifically and statictically significant.

Can't believe your tank is still standing after 40 years, surely the silicone seals would have gone by now??! I know they recommend replacing the silicone after about 8-10 years in most cases.

Paul B
04/10/2010, 01:23 PM
I hear what you are saying regarding your own tank but there is no way to prove that adding bacteria is doing anything in your tank because there are way too many variables which effect a reef system, and every tank is different

Of course thats true, my one system is in no way a scientific study, but it does prove that at least, adding bacteria "may" not be detrimental.

Can't believe your tank is still standing after 40 years, surely the silicone seals would have gone by now??!

SSSSHHHHHHHHHH

capnfritz
04/11/2010, 05:32 AM
I want to thank everyone who participated in this thread, expert and amatuer alike, you all enhanced my understanding of my system a lot.
Greatly appreciated.

Spracklcat
04/11/2010, 05:40 AM
What would be quite interesting is to also track some of the specific traits of each tank to identify beneficial bacterial strains that can outcompete cyano or specifically consume some of the nasties in our tanks.
Just think, a bacterial dose(s) that specifically targets flatworms, ich, etc.?

(Maybe if we can identify specific commercial viability, funding will appear?)

In other words, a parasite which infects the parasites. Possible, but most bacteria are not that specific as far as target species, so in all likelihood it would not be reef-safe.

Do any of you have a theory as to why ich does not seem to effect my tank, could bacterial additions possably have anything to do with that?

I think the constant influx of NSW bacteria, fresh, is a good thing, but I don't think it has anything to do specifically with ich. Unless you've treated every single fish before it went in your system you probably have it, but your husbandry is good and your fish are fat and happy, so their own immune systems keep it low. Fish in the ocean bear an average of 34 different species of parasites, and they aren't all dead so...

One thought is that good bacteria that normally colonizes the fish skin might be absent and this would help ich to infest the fish. If these bacteria don't really enjoy life in reef tanks, they may be lost over time, opening up for skin parasites.

Good thought, but not likely. If the normal flora of the fish disappeared you'd more likely see a ripping bacterial infection if there was a portal of entry. Cryptocaryon doesn't care whether bacteria is on the surface of the fish, it burrows beneath that first layer of epidermis anyway, so they don't live in the same habitat on the fish.

I feed yeast and algae to enrich artemia

Yup, yeast is very nutritious, but won't take over your tank because it's the wrong environment for it to thrive. There are actually relatively few fungi in marine systems compated to land or FW systems. So, the yeast are probably eaten by your corals. I doubt the fish get much because it is too tiny--but gut-loading Artemia to feed fish works. Another interesting thing--yeast have beta-glucan, which is a known immune stimulator (for us and fish), so there is that added benefit. A few grams of dry yeast into your tank isn't enough to confer that effect though.

Quote:
I understand that there are bacteria in every part of a tank but I don't think new bacteria would have a hard time working with or replacing bacteria already there. Our guts are loaded with bacteria and we could eat something with a disease causing bacteria that can make us very ill.

But in the vast majority of cases, we get better. One of the reasons for our recovery is resident bacteria kicking the newly introduced bacterias but. If the disease causing bacteria was never introduced, we wouldn't have become ill in the first place.

If this were the case we'd cure diseases by taking bacteria, not antibiotics. Normal bacteria don't fight off invading bacteria--I'll overgeneralize here, but they aren't fighting each other. Your immune system fights the pathogens. What you are thinking of is the benefit of your normal flora, the "good bacteria", just take up real estate and nutrients that the pathogens could use. In fact, the pathogenic bacteria often have a way of injecting toxins into the good bacteria, but not the other way around (cool, eh?). So as an example, if you got Salmonella, eating all the yogurt in the world won't make you get better much faster, but antibiotics and your immune system will. Then, you eat yogurt afterwards to replace the good bacteria that the anitbiotics killed off.

Hurlock
04/11/2010, 06:38 AM
Great topic....I have been in this hobby for over 4o years and I think we are always tweaking our closed systems without totally understanding the dynamics of bacterial changes. Fortunately I have different large systems I can experiment with and monitor the results simply by water chemistry and observing the reef and health of animals.
Case in point;
I set-up a 1200 gal tank August 08 and started using Prodibio on the onset. I replaced a 600 gal with the larger tank and kept many of the same corals and rock. Never any algae problems but some diverse sponge life like I have never had before. I started dosing vodka about a year later. (simply an experiment as nitrates and phosphates were never a problem) I was still dosing weekly Prodibio with the vodka.
The tank still loo0ked great but I noticed some color changes in the SPS. Everything else was the same. Some of the SPS were brighter and more growth rates were unbelievable.
About 6 months ago I stopped the Prodibio and kept the vodka dosing.After 3 months the tank still looked great but I noticed some of the exotic spong growth I had was beginning to receed. I ran out of Prodibio and thought I would save the money and not reorder. I started using the prodibio again about a month ago and noticed recently the sponge is coming back.
As I said I am always tweaking with-out understanding exactly what is happening with the bacteria changes. For me, the look of my tank seems to lead me in the direction I need to take .

I have a 550 that I set-up the month of 911. Had a deeper sand bed , and I was never happy with the total filtration of the tank Tank always did well but never the color or sponge growth of the 1200. I never used Prodibio in the 550. After about 4 years the tank started showing signs of OTS. I nursed it along for a couple of years and thought about tearing it down and changing the sand bed debth and filtration. Always had a little nitrate and phosphate problem but no real algae problems.
I decided to try to keep the tank-up, change my bateria dynamics, and slowly remove the sand bed. This was a year and a half ago and I started dosing vodka and every month I would remove a little of the sand bed with a 10% water change. I had some unbelievable algae blooms on the sand bed but decided to keep-up the vodka dosing and slow sand bed removal. I still did not use Prodibio in this tank.
My goal was to get rid of the OTS, make the tank look alive again, totally reduce nitrates and phosphates, remove some of the sand to a 2" depth and take-out 30% of the rock with -out tearing the tank apart.
After 6 months the algae on the sand bed began to disappear and the nitrates were dropping. I slowily removed some of the rock each month and was amazed that the older rock had fused together with sponge growth and created shapes I could not have developed with even a peg rock method
Again the visual results were my overwhelming guide. Chemically the tank was responding and the bacterial growth was increasing even though I had removed almost half the sand bed and 30% of the live rock.
Today I still only dose vodka in this tank (never any Prodibio) and I started using the Vodka pellets about 3 months ago in the filtration system. This tank now looks great but does not have the sponge diversity of the 1200 gallon system even though I tried to introduce some of the sponge in the 550 from the 1200.
IMO we are always playing with bacterial diversity without understanding what is actually happening. I believe the Prodibio that I add to the 1200 gallon system introduces a bacterial source that the sponges feed on that I can not get in the 550 without Prodibio. The bio pellets in the 550 create a bacterial diversity that I do not have or can create in the 1200.
I feed the 1200 gal about three times a day which certainly affects the bacterial diversity.
I am now changing the GFO and Activated Carbon every two weeks in the 1200 gallon system to see what happens. I am getting less algae on the glass but a little less coraline color.
Hopes this helps with reefers that are fighting cyno,algae blooms, diatom outbreaks. I think we can strip the bacteria down to levels that work and maintain our systems or add bacterial stains that feed the reef and maintain life forms that years ago were impossible. Thanks

orthokardia
04/11/2010, 06:48 AM
I ran out of Prodibio and thought I would save the money and not reorder.

I love the fact that a reefer with a 1200, 550, and >600 gal tanks still trys to save money. solidarity brother:)

It is interesting how great of effect the amount of sandbed removed was having. this is especially interesting as the percent of the sand bed removed would be smaller at first for the same volume removed than at the end.

elegance coral
04/11/2010, 07:58 AM
If this were the case we'd cure diseases by taking bacteria, not antibiotics. Normal bacteria don't fight off invading bacteria--I'll overgeneralize here, but they aren't fighting each other. Your immune system fights the pathogens. What you are thinking of is the benefit of your normal flora, the "good bacteria", just take up real estate and nutrients that the pathogens could use. In fact, the pathogenic bacteria often have a way of injecting toxins into the good bacteria, but not the other way around (cool, eh?). So as an example, if you got Salmonella, eating all the yogurt in the world won't make you get better much faster, but antibiotics and your immune system will. Then, you eat yogurt afterwards to replace the good bacteria that the anitbiotics killed off.

:lol: I didn't mean to imply that bacteria put on tiny little boxing gloves and go at it.
http://www.all-creatures.org/health/beneficial.html
Quote from the link.
"The gut microflora is the name we give to this living factory, whose beneficial functions include: completing the digestion of our foods through fermentation, protecting us against disease-causing microbes........"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gut_flora
Quote from link.
"preventing growth of harmful, pathogenic bacteria"

You can find link after link talking about how our resident bacteria help fight off invading bad guy bacteria. You won't find any links where our resident bacteria went Rambo on the bad guys though.:uzi: They win the battle much in the same way that bacteria in our aquariums, and pretty much every other ecosystem on the planet do. They start by being very well adapted to the physical parameters of the environment. Temperature, PH, oxygen levels....... Being efficient at utilizing the nutrients of the environment, and providing a benefit to the environment which in turn keeps them healthy (in most cases). In our guts they help by providing nutrients to us that we can use to build healthy immune systems. Once these conditions are met, the microbes can utilize available surface area and nutrients, making it difficult for invading species. Without our resident good guy bacteria, we would be left vulnerable to invasive bad guy bacteria. The rules of engagement may be different than a boxing match, but the resident bacteria typically still kick the invaders but.

Disclaimer.
I am not a microbiologist.
As if that's not overwhelmingly obvious with my use of terms like "kick but", "good guy bacteria", and "bad guy bacteria". :hmm3::lol:

Paul B
04/11/2010, 09:02 AM
I am not a microbiologist.


I am an electrician, does that count?

teesquare
04/11/2010, 09:04 AM
Hurlock;

You just gained my vote for Post of the Day!

Thanks for your observation based research. We often forget that the sterility of pure science omits the real world experience of being a "gardener".

And - when I read your post, I very much thought of how I observe, and tweak things in my own aquaria. it is by observation FIRST....All else is theory, and marketing:)

I do find it erksome that we have many "experts" in this hobby that can espouse theory, and science - but cannot produce pictures of their own tank that is exemplary of the results they claim will follow if one adheres to their advice.

I would love to see pics of your tanks. I am sure they will not dissapoint!

T

Paul B
04/11/2010, 12:40 PM
I do find it erksome that we have many "experts" in this hobby that can espouse theory, and science - but cannot produce pictures of their own tank that is exemplary of the results they claim will follow if one adheres to their advice.


While I am by no means an expert, no one else is either. This is a hobby, and the defination of hobby is past time or a thing of leisure. There are no doctorates for a hobby. A marine biologist does not count as a fish tank expert because a fish tank of any type is an artificial envirnment kept in our case, as a means of enjoyment. We may learn something along the way, but it is basically a hobby.
I have a cousin who is a marine biology professor. For that title he had to SCUBA dive exactly once for about 30 minutes. He has never kept a fish tank and has no idea how to. He can name every worm that he sees a picture of in a book, but I doubt that would help as an aquarist.
There are no schools for this hobby. We do have experts like Randy who can tell you all about the chemical aspects of an aquarium and researchers, biologists and bacterialogists who know about their fields which do undoubtably "help" with the scientific processes of an aquarium but a Reef Tank "expert".
Never heard of one. They are all self proclaimed.
This hobby is a combination, of a chemist, biologist, bacterialogist, electrician, plumber and DIYer.
I myself am amazed by all of the knowledge on here, but no one person knows it all. :reading:

As for tank pictures, my tank pictures have been on here ad nausium.
It is no where near the nicest looking tank on here, but it is just the way I like it. Also I, in no way try to push my advice on anyone. The proof is that no one uses a UG filter but me. :D


By the way, this is a great thread and if it seems like we are all getting along, we are not. We are all secretly flaming each other through PMs and putting curses and hexes on everyone on here.
Just last night Randy did a drive by tomato throwing at my house. :lol2::wavehand:


http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh270/urchsearch/Tank018.jpg

teesquare
04/11/2010, 02:29 PM
We agree so much on the subject of "experts" Paul - that it is scary! In my closing on 30 years now in the hobby - the one thing I know for sure is this:

Every time we get a question answered (by research, or experience) the answer gives birth to at least 5 more questions!:D

But that is just part of the fun of this hobby.
And - your tank is looking great Paul!
T

Paul B
04/11/2010, 02:55 PM
Thank God I built a mojano zapper so I don't have any more of those things. But I kind of like them.

teesquare
04/11/2010, 03:01 PM
Mojano Zapper? Did you toss a hair dryer in the tank Paul???:D
Wha-chu-talkin'-bout Willis? Tell me about the mojano zapper. I prefer a .38 caliber:hmm4:

Paul B
04/11/2010, 03:07 PM
No
http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1808040

teesquare
04/11/2010, 04:23 PM
I LIKE IT!!!!!!

And - and any potential small amount of copper released should be easily dealt with via some carbon.

Looks like fun too Paul!

Thanks,
T

elegance coral
04/11/2010, 04:34 PM
I am an electrician, does that count?

Well, it puts you one step ahead of me. At least you're a master in one of the areas associated with the hobby.

khaosinc
04/11/2010, 04:45 PM
been reading this thread with interest. My completely uninformed theory is that for lots of various bacterial and other life that should help keep a tank stable is to have multiple enviroments for them to colonize.
In my tank I have a cryptic zone, fuge, low flow LR area, DSB (and interducing critters that utilize it) and lots of LR in the tank. I also believe that spray foam insulation in fact functions better than LR for denitrafing bacteria due to its even more pourus nature. The only proof behind that is that there are constanly bubbles forming on it in my extremely neglected tank and I obviously haven't tested its content.

Granted this tank hasn't been up very long yet, and if my circumstances don't change it will never get to be a decades old tank, but its my theory and I'm running with it.

Paul B
04/11/2010, 06:40 PM
and any potential small amount of copper released should be easily dealt with via some carbon.

There is only stainles steel and graphite contacting water.

I also believe that spray foam insulation in fact functions better than LR for denitrafing bacteria due to its even more pourus nature.

The foam may be better, much of my rock is homemade with hollow PVC skeletons that offer much more surface area than real rock

Spracklcat
04/11/2010, 06:42 PM
My completely uninformed theory is that for lots of various bacterial and other life that should help keep a tank stable is to have multiple enviroments for them to colonize.

An "uninformed" idea is often better than in "informed" one: once you learn too much it's easy to fall into dogma. The beauty of a newbie is the ability to say "why the hell not?" and just try things :)

About marine biologists and aquarists: clearly not the same thing. I'm in graduate school now and I am just flabbergasted at how many people DON'T dive and DON'T keep tanks. If you love it enough to invest your life in it, why wouldn't you? That said, our school is "Marine Science", so it includes marine biologists, geologists, chemists, etc. A shameful thing is our building has a nice 120 in the lobby, which I affectionately call the "Philippines Post-dynamite Fishing Biotope." The thing has about 40lbs of rock, and about 50 lbs of hair algae (and is maintained by a geologist). You know it's bad when your algae-grazing urchins have algae growing on them :eek1:

Back to bacteria... :)

teesquare
04/11/2010, 07:09 PM
Sprack -No disrespect intended, but- my experience has been that the vast majority of formally educated chemists, marine biologists, engineers and others often are poor aquarists. Not sure why, ( and I fall into more than one of the groups I took a swipe at - so.....) other than I have seen a bit of educated arrogance often replace the very helpful personality traits of humility and wonder.:D

Khaosinc- Just a thought...
I have personally used thousand of gallons of all current forms of isocyanate driven foams, as well as isocyanurate, and other polyurethane derivitives.
I can tell you that I would NEVER want them in my tank. There are many reasons, and I don't want to detract further from the thread - but you can PM me if I can be of some help to you.
I realize it is quick, and the "cool" stuff to use, but it is not long term a great product - and was never designed for the purpose.:beer:

And you are right...back to bacteria!

T

mhaith
04/11/2010, 07:55 PM
Great topic....I have been in this hobby for over 4o years and I think we are always tweaking our closed systems without totally understanding the dynamics of bacterial changes. Fortunately I have different large systems I can experiment with and monitor the results simply by water chemistry and observing the reef and health of animals.
Case in point;
I set-up a 1200 gal tank August 08 and started using Prodibio on the onset. I replaced a 600 gal with the larger tank and kept many of the same corals and rock. Never any algae problems but some diverse sponge life like I have never had before. I started dosing vodka about a year later. (simply an experiment as nitrates and phosphates were never a problem) I was still dosing weekly Prodibio with the vodka.
The tank still loo0ked great but I noticed some color changes in the SPS. Everything else was the same. Some of the SPS were brighter and more growth rates were unbelievable.
About 6 months ago I stopped the Prodibio and kept the vodka dosing.After 3 months the tank still looked great but I noticed some of the exotic spong growth I had was beginning to receed. I ran out of Prodibio and thought I would save the money and not reorder. I started using the prodibio again about a month ago and noticed recently the sponge is coming back.
As I said I am always tweaking with-out understanding exactly what is happening with the bacteria changes. For me, the look of my tank seems to lead me in the direction I need to take .

I have a 550 that I set-up the month of 911. Had a deeper sand bed , and I was never happy with the total filtration of the tank Tank always did well but never the color or sponge growth of the 1200. I never used Prodibio in the 550. After about 4 years the tank started showing signs of OTS. I nursed it along for a couple of years and thought about tearing it down and changing the sand bed debth and filtration. Always had a little nitrate and phosphate problem but no real algae problems.
I decided to try to keep the tank-up, change my bateria dynamics, and slowly remove the sand bed. This was a year and a half ago and I started dosing vodka and every month I would remove a little of the sand bed with a 10% water change. I had some unbelievable algae blooms on the sand bed but decided to keep-up the vodka dosing and slow sand bed removal. I still did not use Prodibio in this tank.
My goal was to get rid of the OTS, make the tank look alive again, totally reduce nitrates and phosphates, remove some of the sand to a 2" depth and take-out 30% of the rock with -out tearing the tank apart.
After 6 months the algae on the sand bed began to disappear and the nitrates were dropping. I slowily removed some of the rock each month and was amazed that the older rock had fused together with sponge growth and created shapes I could not have developed with even a peg rock method
Again the visual results were my overwhelming guide. Chemically the tank was responding and the bacterial growth was increasing even though I had removed almost half the sand bed and 30% of the live rock.
Today I still only dose vodka in this tank (never any Prodibio) and I started using the Vodka pellets about 3 months ago in the filtration system. This tank now looks great but does not have the sponge diversity of the 1200 gallon system even though I tried to introduce some of the sponge in the 550 from the 1200.
IMO we are always playing with bacterial diversity without understanding what is actually happening. I believe the Prodibio that I add to the 1200 gallon system introduces a bacterial source that the sponges feed on that I can not get in the 550 without Prodibio. The bio pellets in the 550 create a bacterial diversity that I do not have or can create in the 1200.
I feed the 1200 gal about three times a day which certainly affects the bacterial diversity.
I am now changing the GFO and Activated Carbon every two weeks in the 1200 gallon system to see what happens. I am getting less algae on the glass but a little less coraline color.
Hopes this helps with reefers that are fighting cyno,algae blooms, diatom outbreaks. I think we can strip the bacteria down to levels that work and maintain our systems or add bacterial stains that feed the reef and maintain life forms that years ago were impossible. Thanks

Welcome S. Hurlock! (if you guys want to push for pics,this is the guy you want to push. He has amazing systems.)

After absorbing all of the thoughts and theories from these posts, I still haven't been able to get past my original thought in my original post of "Assuming bacterial diversity is a good thing..." outside of the fact that I have see-sawed on that original assumption.....

I realize that Prodibio was simply a transient bacterial addition that would remain in the water column, feed, grow and die to be skimmed out.
I now realize that a new bacterial addition may, at least in the short term with each dose, also provide nutrition to some of the organisms in my tank.

I have always strived, for the 20 years I have had tanks, to keep an influx of new organisms, rock, sand etc. (even small amounts) to keep the bacterial populations 'freshened up'.

I have come to the personal conclusion (at least as of this evening) that a bacterial diversity regimen results in the addition of transitory bacterial populations that may: provide food for some of the organisms in my system, may consume some organics prior to being outcompeted, dying and being skimmed out and may introduce some detrimental organisms to the system resulting in a 'disruption'.

teesquare
04/11/2010, 08:09 PM
Nice tank Michael!

Yep...I am hoping Hurlock will grace us with some tank pics.

T

Spracklcat
04/12/2010, 05:26 AM
Sprack -No disrespect intended, but- my experience has been that the vast majority of formally educated chemists, marine biologists, engineers and others often are poor aquarists. Not sure why, ( and I fall into more than one of the groups I took a swipe at - so.....) other than I have seen a bit of educated arrogance often replace the very helpful personality traits of humility and wonder.:D



None taken, I agree with you :beer:

elegance coral
04/12/2010, 05:28 AM
I do find it erksome that we have many "experts" in this hobby that can espouse theory, and science - but cannot produce pictures of their own tank that is exemplary of the results they claim will follow if one adheres to their advice.

I would love to see pics of your tanks. I am sure they will not dissapoint!

T

Well....... As far as being an "expert", I'll just refer you to Paul's post. I think he covered that about as well as it can be covered. Actually, I think it should be on the home page of RC for everyone to see.

What if someone didn't have a tank at all? Would it make what they're saying any more or less true?

As far as pictures go, I usually don't keep a large display in my living room. I have my own little "man cave" were I set up different smaller systems with different critters and do experiments to learn what makes them tick. Cosmetics usually isn't my goal. I do have photos though. Mostly of critters I've kept over the years, but here are a couple of a tank I set up for the wife.


http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/6817/sn851738editedpu4.jpg

http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/40/sn851210editedkw9.jpg

http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/7514/editedi.jpg

Paul B
04/12/2010, 07:05 AM
I will be collecting bacteria this week when I work on my boat. However I will not let them read this thread as I believe they are doing some type of good.
I hope so anyway or else I have been hauling mud home for three decades for nothing. :D

Besides the mud I also get an added bonus in all of the copepods, worms and amphipods present in the mud. I also don't know if any of that is beneficial but that is for another thread. :wavehand:

teesquare
04/12/2010, 07:36 AM
Well....... As far as being an "expert", I'll just refer you to Paul's post. I think he covered that about as well as it can be covered. Actually, I think it should be on the home page of RC for everyone to see.

Elegance- let me be clear - I was NOT referring to Paul.:thumbsup: or anyone specific. If you have seen my posts - you will notice I have an over-abundant tendency to speak directly...too directly sometimes:eek1:
What if someone didn't have a tank at all? Would it make what they're saying any more or less true?
It would certainly call into question the validity of EXPERIENCE from which they make the comment...Would it not? Would you take the advice of a physician who could not - for some reason/excuse - practice medicine legally?
Or, could you trust the advice of an attorney that was not currently able to practice law...?
Or - would you climb into an aircraft with an instructor that did not have his current liscence to teach?

Too serious? - maybe...but I don't like to waste time, money or frustration on things that can be eliminated. That includes - sometimes - advice:D

As far as pictures go, I usually don't keep a large display in my living room. I have my own little "man cave" were I set up different smaller systems with different critters and do experiments to learn what makes them tick. Cosmetics usually isn't my goal. I do have photos though. Mostly of critters I've kept over the years, but here are a couple of a tank I set up for the wife.
Looks nice to me! You obviously have demonstrated that you have great experience in the hobby.
We live in an era rife with the availabilty of information. Anyone that can read well, and has good comprehension skills can "claim" anything they want. I just like to see "the body of work" that some of us that have been in the hobby a while have accrued. it is just fun, and interesting to me.


http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/6817/sn851738editedpu4.jpg

http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/40/sn851210editedkw9.jpg

http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/7514/editedi.jpg

GreshamH
04/12/2010, 01:58 PM
Nice tank Michael!

Yep...I am hoping Hurlock will grace us with some tank pics.

T

Here's a video to wet your palate :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zh6Cz_H8Uhg

and another

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mz15R0gVMPA&feature=related


Good to see you on the forums Steve :D

teesquare
04/12/2010, 05:52 PM
Absolutely gorgeous display! Love the bommies!

T

khaosinc
04/13/2010, 02:48 AM
very nice..

capnfritz
04/13/2010, 08:59 AM
After reading through the great input here, I am still of the opinion that a coral reef is constantly washed with a multitude of organisms. Generaly speaking I dont think most of us want our tanks to become a "cave". We want to create a piece of a coral reef. It would seem as much diversity as possible (including pathological) is what we want.
As far as making research in this area profitable, I pointed out that all of us would profit by a better understanding of the oceans because they cover 80% + of the earth surface.
"Driving" a reeftank creates a better understanding of all ecosystems and, in the long run benefits all of us. Some body will, and always has, figured out how to make a buck.
Thanks again to all of you, for sharing your knowlege and, in this forum, commercial free to boot.

Steve Bitter
04/13/2010, 07:21 PM
Wow, this is a high level discussion. I thought this website was just people overcharging each other for zoanthids- I guess I should have joined sooner.

I spent many years in aquarium retail, and I always recommended for people to replenish their sandbeds with wild-harvested sand a few times every year. The idea was that not only would they keep their diversity replenished (thinking more about larger fauna, but bacteria too), they would also replace sand that went into solution over time. If I remember correctly, the Fenner and Calfo invert book suggested swapping out pieces of live rock periodically as well, and I did have some clients who would do that every year or so based on that advice.

As I read through this thread, I wonder how much difference all that effort really made to our bacterial populations, considering that we "cross-contaminate" our tanks so often anyway. I have to imagine, and maybe you guys can confirm, that the act of swapping corals, buying wild organisms like corals or snails, and even frozen foods would almost certainly contribute new and different bacterial matter to people's tanks.

Also, our store sold RO/DI and saltwater, and people would dip the self-serve hose spouts into their buckets that I know a lot of them siphoned "dirty" tank water into. I'm sure there was some microbial cross-contamination from so many people essentially sharing water container germs.

Agathos
04/13/2010, 11:36 PM
I have to imagine, and maybe you guys can confirm, that the act of swapping corals, buying wild organisms like corals or snails, and even frozen foods would almost certainly contribute new and different bacterial matter to people's tanks.

Yes, all this you mention would definitely contribute new and different bacterial species to people's tanks. Every new organism (whether it's a coral, a snail, a fish) is home to it's own particular mix of bacterial species. Introducing this organism to your tank means that you introduce a new mix of bacteria, some novel to your tank, some you already have. But these bacteria will usually not end up colonizing your water surface, your live rock, your filter material, your sand bed, etc. They are usually specialized at colonizing the particular organism that they came with and will stay there. They might colonize other related organisms already present in your tank, though. And if you bring in a new piece of live rock you certainly introduce bacteria that will compete with your existing rock-living bacteria for inhabiting your tank's rocks; and if you bring in a sample of ocean water you introduce free-living bacteria that will compete with the bacteria you already have in your tank's water.

My hypothesis is that -- unless you have done something that would have decimated certain bacterial species from your tank -- recently introduced bacteria will not fair well in competition with those already established. Both because the new bacteria has a low population size (compared to the old-timers) and because the old-timers already have proven themselves adept at thriving in your tank. The newcomers might exist transiently in your tank, and do lots of good while being there, but will eventually, like so many others before them, be out-competed by the old-timers.

If OTS is true, and the tank has many unfulfilled metabolic niches at offer for the newcomers, then adding new bacteria to your tank may be very beneficial.

Paul B
04/14/2010, 04:37 AM
I thought this website was just people overcharging each other for zoanthids-

You want to buy some baby carpet anemones? $10.00 each. :lol:

http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh270/urchsearch/Marcoisland005.jpg

mhaith
04/16/2010, 08:37 AM
So.... the day I first posed the question concerning methods of adding bacterial biodiversity to a system 10 days ago, I have taken two actions.

1. I have gone from a weekly (RO/DI) water change of 25% to a bi-weekly water change.
The thought being that although I was stripping out some pollution, I was also stripping out some of the built up live bacterial population from the water column.

2. I added a sweet potato sized piece of live base rock to my sump from another system to 'freshen' the bacterial populations.
Although the specific bacterial strains are unknown, I considered the method to be much like adding a Prodibio or other bacterial inoculation.

Anecdotal results are a marked decrease and/or elimination of the cyano on some of the rocks which had been present for months and a marked increase in coral health with much more polyp extension and color.

Coincidence? Maybe, but it begs the question(s):

Can too many water changes actually be detrimental as it replaces some bacterially ‘charged’ water with comparatively sterile water?

Accepting that long-term diversity is difficult to introduce, can an inoculation from a piece of live rock provide a short-term (and relatively inexpensive) transitory benefit much like a Prodibio or MB7?

Steve Bitter
04/16/2010, 10:40 AM
Do any of you guys run UV sterilizers?

Hurlock
04/16/2010, 10:41 AM
Michael, see I told you this hobby was easy....you give me a piece of your live rock and I will give you a piece of mine.
Again I think diversity of bacteria is just part of the overall success of a good reef system I have tried all different types of water changes over the years, some monthly and sone less frequently. On the 1200 gal I change about 100 gals a month and the 550 I change 40 gals a month.
After feeding the large tank more frequently for a while (I LIKE FAT TANGS) I was getting a little of the dark fuzz algae on the rock surfaces. I began changing the GFO and Carbon every two weeks instead of monthly. In about two months the algae was gone. As I said one of the things I love about this hobby is the visual changes that take place that we can tweek and control to keep the system in some balance. Bacteria is just a part of the equation. As a tank becomes established we can overcome some of our short term mistakes (over feeding,letting cyno get established,letting lights get too old,lack of water changes) by increasing our husbantry when we decide to take action. A friend of mine, Cris Capp (business Aquatic Art) talk on a daily bases. Cris has a theory that he calls the three strike rule. As a reef adapts to even poor conditions you can bring it around but it has to be done in phases. Too many people have lost systems by all of a sudden changing the lights, adding new live rock(bacteria) water change, carbon all at once. The corals can not adapt to that sudden of a change even though you think that is the beat conditions for them. Doing this over a period of a month is great but not all in a weekend.
I will change carbon and GFO at once but never the same time I do a water change.
If I change my lights (Radiums no longer than 7 months) I do nothing else to the system.
I think if you are going to add different bacteria strains (which is great) you let that take action and nothing else until you observe your system for a while. It is great to watch the dynamics of a closed reef system change knowing you had a lot to do with it but without totally understanding WHY. Hurlock

Agathos
04/16/2010, 10:55 AM
Can too many water changes actually be detrimental as it replaces some bacterially ‘charged’ water with comparatively sterile water?

No, as long as some water remains the newly added water will soon be rich with the same bacteria that was removed during the water change.

Hurlock
04/16/2010, 11:02 AM
Steve, Over the past I have run UV and Ozone. Don't think the need is there for me. My 1200 gal maintains ORP IN THE 370-380 range and the fish are healthy with no disease. Water is clear with frequent carbon change. I think Uv in a reef can kill some of the bacteria we are trying to populate. If I had a fish only system I would probably run UV Hurlock

Paul B
04/16/2010, 11:38 AM
Can too many water changes actually be detrimental as it replaces some bacterially ‘charged’ water with comparatively sterile water?


I am not sure about this but I do know that in a newly established tank with new water the fish look terrible and are suseptable to all sorts of ailments.
I personally change about 20% of my water 5 or 6 times a year.
I also don't think there is hardly any bacteria in clean seawater. Bacteria need something to grow on and they don't swim. That is the reason that newly collected clear seawater will usually become cloudy if kept in a bucket for a couple of days, sometimes hours. Bacteria, when it finds a place to settle, multiplies much faster than in clear water with nothing to adhere to.

I also don't use a UV but I do use Ozone.

Agathos
04/16/2010, 12:15 PM
I also don't think there is hardly any bacteria in clean seawater. Bacteria need something to grow on and they don't swim.

In water the highest density of bacteria is to be found in the surface layer - the so-called biofilm, but there will be PLENTY of bacteria found in the rest of the water, too. They grow on nutrients, both organics and inorganics, dissolved in the water or found at small particles and some also use photosynthesis. Some bacteria can swim, either through the use of flagella or writhing motions of the bacterial cell.

GreshamH
04/16/2010, 01:00 PM
In water the highest density of bacteria is to be found in the surface layer - the so-called biofilm, but there will be PLENTY of bacteria found in the rest of the water, too. They grow on nutrients, both organics and inorganics, dissolved in the water or found at small particles and some also use photosynthesis. Some bacteria can swim, either through the use of flagella or writhing motions of the bacterial cell.

Beat me to the punch :)

philbo32
04/16/2010, 01:33 PM
In water the highest density of bacteria is to be found in the surface layer - the so-called biofilm

The biofilm and the surface layer are completely different things in terms of aquatic definition, surface layer is the surface waters where the majority of photosynthesis takes place. Biofilm is the film of microbes which covers rocks, sand, objects etc and can occur at any depth.

Paul B
04/16/2010, 01:42 PM
Beat me to the punch

OK, I don't believe it but OK anyway :bum:

There isn't much surface film in the rough Atlantic and although I actually believe you I am sure there are vastly more bacteria in the substrait than in clear water.
I guess I will have to look closer the next time I am diving for the swimming bacteria :lmao:

Thats why we have you bacteria geeks here. I'm just an electrician.
Either way, I doubt we are loseing too much bacteria when we do a water change.

and they don't swim.

OK I should have said, they don't swim well enough to compete in the olympics. Any way, they probably don't like to swim.

teesquare
04/16/2010, 01:42 PM
Are we splitting cillia?:twitch:

T

teesquare
04/16/2010, 01:47 PM
Hey Paul - Here is a "T-ism" I refer to on occasion:

Education teaches us WHAT to think....
Experience teaches us HOW to think!

to 40 more years of tank keeping Paul!:fish1:

Paul B
04/16/2010, 02:03 PM
Education teaches us WHAT to think....
Experience teaches us HOW to think!


Both cases tell us not to use a UG filter, see how that turned out. :wave:

teesquare
04/16/2010, 02:09 PM
Then the only true caveat applies:

MORE BEER!!! HAPPY FRIDAY!

Shoot - Paul I am in awe of your husbandry of your tank. I would not trust myself to keep a tank with the bio diversity that you have via UGF. But - Most though Lee Chin Eng was crazy bac in the dark ages - and now - use of live rock is the standard.
Maybe you will bring back the UGF in style.....


T

Paul B
04/16/2010, 02:40 PM
Maybe you will bring back the UGF in style.....



We don't want to do that, if tanks never crashed LFSes would go out of business.
Lee Chin was great at this stuff but he also cheated. He lived by the sea and used NSW and sunlight. If something died, he could throw it back in the sea and pick up something else but he did teach us about live rock even though he really did not fully understand the process going on. Even my mentor Robert Straughn espoused UG filtration but he thought of it as a filter that had to be cleaned and not a platform to house bacteria.
We have come far but we still don't have all the answers, only more questions.
I go with a more natural method somewhat like Lee chin Eng but there are so many ways to acomplish the same thing.
I still personally feel that adding bacteria from the sea is the way to go, unfortunately, there are not enough tanks out there using the same techniques to test. I don't feel four or five years is enough of a test.
We often see a gorgeous tank and want to switch to those methods but then we learn the tank is six months old. Any tank should last that period of time. even without food, but if that tank looks great in ten or twenty years, now thats a test.

teesquare
04/16/2010, 03:41 PM
It is nice to live by your water change and bacteria refreshment source - and free at that!
Everybody cheats I suppose in some way. After all - artificial salt water is the biggest "cheat" of all.

I agree with you - the test of decades is what tells the tale of husbandry techniques and practices.

T

mhaith
04/16/2010, 04:28 PM
It is great to watch the dynamics of a closed reef system change knowing you had a lot to do with it but without totally understanding WHY.
Hurlock

That is the main attraction for me...playing 'God' in a way and controlling and managing an ecosystem that is totally dependent on a combination of my knowledge, experience and my instincts. It takes a giant amount of all of them!!

I also give Cris credit for the saying "In a reef tank, bad things happen fast and good things take a long time". That is probably why he is TOTM!

I'm glad you, as such an accomplished reefer, still believe after participating in this thread that bacterial diversity and a constant refreshing of the system is still good practice. I have changed my opinion that new populations are probably not allowed a long-term foothold but my opinion that the benefits from the introduction of new bacterial cultures outweigh the 'disruptions'.

I'll call you to trade rocks!

HighlandReefer
04/16/2010, 06:37 PM
I posted this response in the Chemistry Forum and thought I would add it here for remarks:
----------------------

Jason,

Thanks for the link.

The remarks that Agathos has made in the posted thread above tells it pretty much the way I believe from the research I have read regarding populations of bacteria studied in the ocean, though this information can't be directly correlated to a reef tank.

For example scientists have taken samples from the ocean surface water at various spot and then analyzed the bacterial populations present in one gallon of ocean water. They have found that there are literally tens of thousands of types of bacteria in one gallon of ocean water found within the top 30'. If I were to use this knowledge and try to transfer what to expect to find in an average reef aquarium I would expect to find at least thousands, if not a lot more types of bacteria in a reef tank.

Other research completed on bacteria introduced into reactors used on tanks has shown that introduced bacteria do not compete in general with native species for the nitrogen cycle purposes. The research shows that usually several species of bacteria end up dominating the nitrogen cycle and the bacteria species will shift when the concentrations of nitrate, nitrite and ammonia are changed. Further research has demonstrated that the bacterial species will shift with changes in dissolved organic carbon content and type. Further research has demonstrated that the bacterial species will change if the heavy metal content changes in amount and type. Further research has demonstrated that the bacterial populations will shift with temperature changes. These bacterial shifts in species does not mean the the other species go away. To the contrary they still survive, but not in dominate numbers. Recent research has shown that bacterial species have survived for many tens of thousands of years, many in very reduced numbers, but still available if the need presents itself to make a come-back.

One might extrapolate from this research that every change we make in food, vitamins, organic carbon dosing, supplement dosing (heavy metals), temperature changes........etc can cause shifts in bacterial populations in the water column, substrate, rock, inside the coral tissues and in the secretion layers around the coral. Thankfully, these changes in bacterial populations in most situations are not a bad thing and the bacteria that replace the others are actually more effective at the job for nitrogen cycle purposes.

However, hobbyists do notice bad things happening occasionally from these bacterial specie shifts, IMHO. For example, some hobbyists will dose carbon sources (like vodka, vinegar, sugar, vit. C and amino acids) and notice problems starting. What kind of problems to expect from bacterial specie shifts would be tissue necrosis in coral. What happens according to research, is the new bacterial species that take over can (in some cases) produce toxins that actually kill the coral. Some of the toxins can be sulfur compounds or other organic sources that are very toxic. In other cases, the new bacterial will start physically eating the coral tissues and beneficial bacterial species. In many cases it is impossible to stop the new bacteria from killing the coral. Perhaps fragging the coral may help.

IMHO, the moral of the story is that every change we make in a reef system can cause bacterial population shifts, either for the better or worse. So, one should be careful in what they add, and make changes very slowly and carefully watch for noticeable changes in the coral color, polyp health and signs of tissue necrosis. One should only change one variable at a time.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


FWIW, to add to what I have posted above, the same applies to other micro-organisms found in a reef tank, especially the cyanobacteria, algae, symbiotic algae within coral tissues and dinoflagellates. These other micro-organisms can change in populations for the same reasons that bacterial populations change and these other micro-organisms can in some cases, produce toxins that harm the coral. In other cases, the changes in bacterial & other micro-organism populations can cause color changes in coral that many hobbyists seem to like.

When playing with carbon sources, vitamins, amino acids, higher temperatures, heavy metals (micro-nutrients), changing food types, making major changes in water parameters, introducing new things into your tank and many other aspects of our hobby, we are playing with fire. Sooner or later someone is going to get burnt, which is seen occasionally in this forum.

I have been burnt several times, since I like to experiment more than anything else.

Paul B
04/17/2010, 07:45 AM
making major changes in water parameters, introducing new things into your tank and many other aspects of our hobby, we are playing with fire. Sooner or later someone is going to get burnt, which is seen occasionally in this forum.

I have been burnt several times, since I like to experiment more than anything else.





This is certainly true especially when adding man made additions that are not really natural or taken from the natural envirnment.
I did have problems when I was using kalk and tinkering with pH.
I don't tinker with water parameters or even test for anything anymore and I guess I have been lucky.
Tanks do go through changes especially when adding materials from the sea. I have been seeing cycles for years but so far, none of these were bad things. I find them interesting and am glad the tank is not static. I do occasionally experience short red algae that covers everything in the Sound and sometimes the tank is full of a type of pod or plankton that I have never seen before. These things have so far been what I consider a good thing.
I can't really say if the added bacteria has done anything and have no idea how to test for that. (maybe you guys do)
My test for a healthy tank is the spawning ability of all of the inhabitants.
Not just the fish but the crabs, worms and pods. These things along with fish should spawn continousely or at least attempt to spawn if they are not a pair.
Fish in the sea spawn all the time and if you do a lot of diving alone where you can stay and study the inhabitants close up, you will see the crevaces and nooks under the rocks just full of fry.
This should happen in a tank also. Of course if you have one of each species of fish they will not spawn but even lone fish, if they are healthy will clean a nest and chase other fish away. I am talking about fish that can spawn in a tank, not egg scatterers like tangs.
Bacteria is the driving force that ultimately keeps things healthy (or sickens them)
We think about paracites, parameters, and suppliments but I think more study should go into bacteria.
Just my opinion and of course most of it is just ranting. :worried:

teesquare
04/17/2010, 09:20 AM
"Imitation is the highest form of flattery"..................

After all - most of ust strive imitate the reef envirenment, or other biotopes- don't we?

I agree with you Paul -that the way we think about our aquarium envirement should mimic closer how and what goes on in nature.

Unfortunately for most of us - we are distant from the ocean and obtaining the sand, bacteria, and rock "refreshments" is not practical.

So - what would you suggest for those of us that are not near such a great resource as you have?

T

Paul B
04/17/2010, 09:35 AM
So - what would you suggest for those of us that are not near such a great resource as you have?


Well I guess you don't want to move so I think that bacteria should be available to inland hobbiests. It could even be quarantined if anyone is worried about paracites.
We import animals from all over the globe, why isn't natural bacteria from the sea available? I don't mean in those stupid little bottles, I mean in a container like fish comes in. A gallon of the stuff could be maintained in a tank in a LFS and sold in small containers like brine shrimp. Some of the sand from where the animals are collected could be shipped with the fish. But not in the same bag.
Just my opinion of course but the stuff is free and as far as I know, not restricted.
People ask me all the time to mail them a bag of mud. I am surrounded by the stuff.

Of course we have to wait for the end of this thread to see if adding bacteria is even a good Idea.
Some of these bacteria gurus would know better.

teesquare
04/17/2010, 09:47 AM
Sounds like a great business opportunity for someone Paul!

Thanks,
T

Agathos
04/17/2010, 10:20 AM
Of course we have to wait for the end of this thread to see if adding bacteria is even a good Idea.
Some of these bacteria gurus would know better.

I am by no means a "bacteria guru", but I still think I can say that the answer is not that it is good to add bacteria, or that it is bad to add bacteria, but that adding bacteria MAY be positive depending upon what organisms are already in your tank (both micro- and macro-organisms), what concentrations they are in (especially microbial population sizes) and your tank parameters (pH, salinity, etc).

If your tank already contains a healthy ecosystem of different bacterial species that are able to maintain a stable chemical environment for your lifestock, or should be able to if you only gave them the chance, then adding additional additional bacteria will not do any good, and might actually be harmful to your tank. If, for some reason, this is not the case, then adding bacterial cultures, preferably from a reef environment, may help to restore the ecosystem.

The point is that determining the health of your micro-ecosystem is very difficult, and problems with tank parameters may camouflage as problems with your microorganisms. In most cases with enough time or just more careful tank-keeping, the ideal bacterial ecosystem will form again (it's just a matter of adjusting different bacterial population sizes, and this usually happens on it's own in a system that is stable).

So selling mud with bacteria would probably be a viable business idea because people tend to love miracle cures and tank-keepers tend to have money to spend on anything they believe would help them, but I doubt it would be a real benefit to many of their tanks (unless the tank has some serious problem with it's microorganisms). And personally I would go for bacterial cultures from actual reefs (to get the right combination of bacterial species) and not from somewhere else. The bacteria you find elsewhere not only contains those species in other concentrations but also contains a different set of species. What you would want is bacteria that has evolved to live on reefs.

teesquare
04/17/2010, 10:36 AM
I am by no means a "bacteria guru", but I still think I can say that the answer is not that it is good to add bacteria, or that it is bad to add bacteria, but that adding bacteria MAY be positive depending upon what organisms are already in your tank (both micro- and macro-organisms), what concentrations theyGee - I just sold my electron microscope....HOW am I going to know WHAT and HOW MANY I have?:rollface: are in (especially microbial population sizes) and your tank parameters (pH, salinity, etc).

If your tank already contains a healthy ecosystem How can one answer whether or not the eco-system is "healthy" in a closed envirement deprived of a natural source of self-renewal/replacement?of different bacterial species that are able to maintain a stable chemical environment for your lifestock,But I think we are talking about a much "bigger picture" than just the basic chemical perameters that most here can measure or should be able to if you only gave them the chance, then adding additional additional bacteria will not do any good, and might actually be harmful to your tank. If, for some reason, this is not the case, then adding bacterial cultures, preferably from a reef environment,But the "reef envirement depends on the turtle grass, and mud flats, and mangroves as well as the "deep sinks" of our oceans for a balance of nutrient up-take/export, conversion, etc. may help to restore the ecosystem.

The point is that determining the health of your micro-ecosystem is very difficult, Agreed!and problems with tank parameters may camouflage as problems with your microorganisms. In most cases with enough time or just more careful tank-keeping, the ideal Again..."ideal"...I am not sure I can clearly identify this as defineablebacterial ecosystem will form again (it's just a matter of adjusting different bacterial population sizes, and this usually happens on it's own in a system that is stablestable - but continuing to accumulate Nitrate and Phosphate - or accumulate nuetral? Because the current popular systems approach requires much more to truly create LONG TERM stability).

So selling mud with bacteria would probably be a viable business idea because people tend to love miracle cures and tank-keepers tend to have money to spend on anything they believe would help them, but I doubt it would be a real benefit to many of their tanksWell...I am trying to keep an open mind about that. I believe in free enterprize, and that an open mind learns while a closed one cannot!:fun4: (unless the tank has some serious problem with it's microorganisms). And personally I would go for bacterial cultures from actual reefs (to get the right combination of bacterial species) and not from somewhere else.But, if you have a "stable" system - assuming you have a reef biotope tank - would this not be redundant? I think the other species from biotopes that influence and assist the reef is what we may be missing The bacteria you find elsewhere not only contains those species in other concentrations but also contains a different set of species. What you would want is bacteria that has evolved to live on reefs.

Paul B
04/17/2010, 10:42 AM
So selling mud with bacteria would probably be a viable business idea

It is not a business I was thinking of entering.

What you would want is bacteria that has evolved to live on reefs.


So you don't think my East River bacteria are that great?

You are probably correct, but what do I know?
The next time I go to Tahiti I will have to fill my underwater camera with some sand.

Actually temperate bacteria "may" be better at converting wastes than tropical bacteria.
This is only a far out theory that has absolutely no scientific bearing but bacteria from say, New York should be real good at converting waste. We have a lot of waste and our local waters undoutably have more waste than say, Bora Bora.
I know if I put a local crab or fish in my tropical tank, it would, for some reason, kick the you know what out of tropical animals. (I do it often just because I can)
Yes, I know bacteria are not fish or crabs.
I don't know if bacteria from waters with harsher conditions could even thrive in a tropical tank but I do know that the water near my home goes from about 35 degrees to about 73 or almost 90 in tide pools.
How much different is tropical bacteria from temperate bacteria? Does anyone know?
Will the temperature or waste content affect the viability of bacteria?
Being that I use local water would that affect what types of bacteria my tank harbors?
I know, too many variables, sorry, I spend a lot of time thinking about these things.

teesquare
04/17/2010, 10:47 AM
Gee Paul...I AM dissapointed- I mean East River mud !!!!! Think about the packaging options....You could have a large one that looks like Jimmy Hoffa in "over-shoes". And a smaller one that is a Frank Sinatra model!
T

Paul B
04/17/2010, 11:00 AM
You want bacteria? Pull up your anchor here in the East River and I will show you bacteria.
Actually the bottom of the East River (which is not really a river but a salt water estuary that goes around the east side of manhattan)
Is nothing but hydrogen sulfide due to the very fine mud and much disolved organics.
The East River starts (or ends, depending on the tide) in the Long Island Sound. The farther you get from there, the cleaner the water, and substrait becomes. When you get about 100 miles from there, the water is clear and the bottom is clean sand.

Teesquare, I am shipping this barge of mud to you for your tank

http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh270/urchsearch/P7170279.jpg

Here about 80 miles from the East River the water is extreamly clean and so is the sand. There is no mud here and this is where I like to collect water.

http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh270/urchsearch/IMG_0225.jpg

Agathos
04/17/2010, 11:25 AM
So you don't think my East River bacteria are that great?

They are great if and only if there is a need for these bacteria in your tank, and my guess is that usually this would not be the case.

Actually temperate bacteria "may" be better at converting wastes than tropical bacteria.

Yes, the may, but probably not at reef temperature, and with reef biochemistry, with reef ecological niches, and in companionship with other reef organisms. Under these highly specific conditions, natural reef bacteria are the ones that have evolved to do the job.

But I do agree with the sentiment that our tanks are NOT equal to natural reefs, and hence perhaps a non-reef indigenous organism may actually perform better.

But adding thousands of unidentified bacteria from a random environment to battle a problem that may not exist or may be caused by something entirely different, sounds to me as an approach that only rarely will succeed and which in worst case may be harmful.

Spracklcat
04/17/2010, 12:18 PM
Not to mention that human pathogens may be in those waters and will do very well in a tank. I'm not arguing against using NSW, I'm just saying we should remember when we're mouth siphoning.

Paul B
04/17/2010, 12:23 PM
and hence perhaps a non-reef indigenous organism may actually perform better.


Could be. Years ago I had an urchin collection business where I would collect local NY urchins to eat algae in reef tanks. The NY urchins made short work of algae at tropical temperatures because they evolved to live in much cooler water. They lived up to 82 degrees. They would move much faster than tropical urchins and eat vast amounts of algae.

adding thousands of unidentified bacteria from a random environment to battle a problem that may not exist

This is probably true but I don't add bacteria to battle a problem but to enhance the biodiversity in the hope that it is doing some good.
So far the jury seems to still be out on that. But at least the age of the tank proves that it "probably" does not hurt. I did say "probably"
Maybe I should have said "hopefully"

I'm just saying we should remember when we're mouth siphoning.



Spracklcat in all the years I have been diving and swimming in the Sound, it is probably much too late for me to worry about siphining :lol:

I have spent most of the last 35 years floating behind my boat in that water. I don't have much hair left, maybe thats why

Agathos
04/17/2010, 12:32 PM
Years ago I had an urchin collection business where I would collect local NY urchins to eat algae in reef tanks. The NY urchins made short work of algae at tropical temperatures because they evolved to live in much cooler water. They lived up to 82 degrees. They would move much faster than tropical urchins and eat vast amounts of algae.

Another good example of why one should try to avoid inoculating natural ecosystems with foreign species. (Btw, I doubt your urchins really evolved, unless they actually bred in your system and went through many generations).

This is probably true but I don't add bacteria to battle a problem but to enhance the biodiversity in the hope that it is doing some good.
So far the jury seems to still be out on that. But at least the age of the tank proves that it "probably" does not hurt. I did say "probably"
Maybe I should have said "hopefully"

I think the age of your tank suggests that it doesn't harm your tank.

Paul B
04/17/2010, 12:37 PM
Agathos, I did not mean that those urchins evolved to live in a tropical tank, on the contrary, they lived their life much faster than they were designed to. They only lived a year or two at that temperature.
As for breeding, once 24 of them all spawned in my tank at the same time. My skimmer which has a five gallon effluent bucket overflowed about 8 gallons of water on the floor.
It was a real mess.
Of course out of the billions of eggs, none of them survived and the tank looked like half and half. The bacteria had a feast and the tank did not crash. In a day, all was well.

Agathos
04/17/2010, 01:30 PM
Agathos, I did not mean that those urchins evolved to live in a tropical tank, on the contrary, they lived their life much faster than they were designed to.

It's just me nitpicking :). Nevermind me.

Hurlock
04/17/2010, 02:45 PM
Bacteria Bacteria........A couple of years ago when my 600 gal reef as up I wanted to try Mangroves in the filter room attached to the tank. I had everything ready and ordered 3-4 foor mangroves from a grower in Florida. The roots were 2 feet long and covered with some mud. I rinsed off the mud an put the plants in the modified refugium. Two days later my fish looked like someone was trying to peel their skin off. I lost about six nice tangs and the other fish, even though sick, came through the break-out. It was not ick but I think I introduced a bacteria or parasite from the mangroves. As well as my tank was established it took just a short time for new bacteria to almost destroy the fish population. I now just introduce know reef culture rock or animals and not tidepool or mud flat animals. Hurlock

teesquare
04/17/2010, 03:07 PM
Paul - Thanks for the barge of mud! It is always more welcome than a barge of the the stuff that comes out of the backside of horses :lolspin:

T

ctenophors rule
04/17/2010, 11:22 PM
I did not read every post in this, but believe i have the gist from skimming.

I did not see a response that addresses the problem with aged becteria. Bacteria populations can live for very long periods of time (at harbor branch they feed their bacteria about once every five years!). now im not certain of the life span of the nitrosomanos and nitrosphyrus bacteria in our aquariums, but it will only change my arguement if it is less than a few days( I find unlikely) anyway, bacteria becomes less efficient as it ages, in some species the change is significant, upwards of 85%! my point is that a die off of a bacteria strain isn't neccesarily a bad thing. It may effect water quality for a very brief period of time, but would likely rebound when the other bacteria rapidly reproduce and create highly efficient offspring.

remember if the bacteria are 50% more efficient you only need half as many as before...i think..i suck at math. lol

oh and, while it makes perfect sense that through natural selection our tanks will tend to become less diverse, has their been a study to support this claim?

If so at what rate did the change occur? how diverse are our tanks to begin with?

Agathos
04/18/2010, 12:03 AM
anyway, bacteria becomes less efficient as it ages, in some species the change is significant, upwards of 85%!

Are you talking about aging of individual bacteria or aging of bacterial populations? Anyway, I don't agree. I see no reason why they should become less efficient with years. In fermentation of monocultures we some times see less efficiency of whatever bioproduct formation or catabolic activity we are interested in, probably because they live in monocultures, but in our tank ecosystems with a complex mix of interspecies interaction I don't see why this should happen.


my point is that a die off of a bacteria strain isn't neccesarily a bad thing. It may effect water quality for a very brief period of time, but would likely rebound when the other bacteria rapidly reproduce and create highly efficient offspring.

I don't understand why the offspring would be more "efficient" than their mother cells.

steverochford
04/18/2010, 12:04 PM
very interesting thread although i dont fully understand what is being said with that said i would like to pose a question
i have recently reset up my system 2500 liters and am using prodibio products ,i am very happy with the effect it is having during the initial running in period, cyano has all but gone and no3 and po4 are 0.00 and 0.008
my question is ; now that i have dosed the biodigest(bacteria) for six weeks now, is there any value in adding more if what you guys are sayng that these bacterias multiply by themselves. I know that skimming takes some of these bacterias out but you are saying that these bacterias are not water bound but surface bound?
I have a 250 liter vat darkened full of live rock i add the biodigest to this area of the system
thanks
steve

ctenophors rule
04/18/2010, 05:47 PM
Are you talking about aging of individual bacteria or aging of bacterial populations? Anyway, I don't agree. I see no reason why they should become less efficient with years.

maybe I am wrong, but that is what i have heard. why would you say that the bacteria would become less efficient in a monoculture? what role doesn't an absence of competition play?


I don't understand why the offspring would be more "efficient" than their mother cells.

from what i have been told, or read, 1 young bacteria will process more than an old one.

let me do some research

Agathos
04/19/2010, 12:25 AM
i have recently reset up my system 2500 liters and am using prodibio products ,i am very happy with the effect it is having during the initial running in period, cyano has all but gone and no3 and po4 are 0.00 and 0.008

How do you know the Prodibio product has any effect?


my question is ; now that i have dosed the biodigest(bacteria) for six weeks now, is there any value in adding more if what you guys are sayng that these bacterias multiply by themselves.

All bacteria multiply by themselves, the question is whether the particular bacteria in that specific product will multiply themselves in your tank. For them to do so, they must enjoy the specific water chemistry of your tank, and not be out-competed by the bacteria that is already present in your tank. So, it is impossible to answer your question.

I believe that there is no point in adding more. I don't see any point in adding anything to your system if the water parameters are fine. It if ain't broken...


I know that skimming takes some of these bacterias out but you are saying that these bacterias are not water bound but surface bound?

It depends on exactly which bacterial species are in the product you are adding to your tank.

Agu
04/24/2010, 07:29 PM
I'm with Paul,

I collect various items from the Gulf and backwaters (snails , hermit crabs , macro algae, interesting pieces of rock) and add them to my tanks. Do this BTW with correct collecting licenses for a Florida resident.

I find my tanks are easier to maintain than when I was from land locked Minnesota and everything was imported. Possibly it's just a coincidence. However I've had no problems because I've introduced random flora and fauna from the Gulf.

mhaith
04/25/2010, 01:20 PM
Agathos-

You mention that bacterial populations recover 'quickly'. What does that mean and what are the time frames? I have noticed a healthier tank when I change water every other week vs every week.

Are you of the opinion that bacterial treatments like Prodibio are ineffective?

Agathos
04/25/2010, 02:24 PM
You mention that bacterial populations recover 'quickly'. What does that mean and what are the time frames?

That varies tremendously between different bacterial species. With optimal conditions the bacterium with the quickest growth rate, Vibrio natriegens, divides every 11 minutes (!). Other bacteria grow very slowly, with cell division only taking place after days, weeks, months or even years (bacteria found deep in the Earth crust is hypothesized to grow and divide extremely slowly, but then the nutrient accessibility is rather low).

It's hard to give an average growth rate since it varies so much between species and we don't really know which bacteria colonize our tanks (or do we?). But a few hours, given perfect conditions, sounds plausible for marine free-living bacteria. And the conditions in our tanks are pretty good: high temperatures and usually LOTS of available nutrients.

What does this mean? A few hours in growth rate may not seem that much, but it actually means that the number of bacterial cells double every few hours. So if you exchange 50 % of your tank's water with new "sterile" water, it would take the tank bacteria only a few hours to completely populate the new water.

What keeps them in check then? Why don't they take over and start oozing out of your tanks? Because they conditions are never that perfect, sooner or later they deplete some nutrient they need for continued growth, and they reach a population plateau.

Are you of the opinion that bacterial treatments like Prodibio are ineffective?

I am not familiar with this product, but if it is used at start-up I think it would help to give a boost to the bacterial colonization of the tank. Adding extra bacteria (through Prodibio), and not only rely on the bacteria that is added to the tank via rocks, sand, fish, etc, probably reduces the cycling time of the tank. The bacterial population reaches its maximum more quickly and therefore nitrates, nitrites and ammonium are more quickly removed. I say probably, because if you add lots of live rock and sand of good quality, the amount of bacteria added with Prodibio might be negligible. I am also not convinced that the bacterial strains chosen for the Prodibio product are ideal for reef tanks.

mhaith
04/26/2010, 11:10 AM
So your position is that bacterial populations after a water change are back to 100% within a few hours........that is fast!

Prodibio as well as other bacterial supplements are not used at start up. This is a transient regimen that involves biweekly doses.

My understanding is that they work through the addition of bacterial populations that grow through the consumption of organics and die to be skimmed out of the tank.
There is little question (I believe) and anecdotally speaking there is an impact through the lowering of nitrates and phosphates.

If this is the case, why wouldn't the addition of a piece of live rock from another tank have the same result?

FWIW, why don't you believe that the bacterial strains chosen for Prodibio are ideal for reef tanks (especially if you are not familiar with the product)?

Agathos
04/26/2010, 11:43 AM
So your position is that bacterial populations after a water change are back to 100% within a few hours........that is fast!

That is my hypothesis. But it all depends on exactly which bacterial species populate our tanks, since their growth rates varies a lot. So a few hours is a rough suggestion tainted with a rather high uncertainty. It could be less, it could be more.


Prodibio as well as other bacterial supplements are not used at start up. This is a transient regimen that involves biweekly doses.

My understanding is that they work through the addition of bacterial populations that grow through the consumption of organics and die to be skimmed out of the tank.
There is little question (I believe) and anecdotally speaking there is an impact through the lowering of nitrates and phosphates.

If this is the case, why wouldn't the addition of a piece of live rock from another tank have the same result?

Are we certain it doesn't? Well, taking a piece of rock from one tank and adding it to another tank usually causes a lot of die-off, unless care is taken to keep the rock moist and to ensure that the conditions of the two tanks are equal. This die-off slows down any positive effect that the additional bacteria may cause. Perhaps it even just causes more problems in the form of more organics from the dead bacterial cells.

But if care is taken I believe the same effect will result: more bacteria added to the tank consume more of the nitrates and phosphates, regardless of whether these come from a commercial product, mature live rock from another tank, or mud from the US.

My earlier point in this thread is that if additional bacteria is added to a mature tank with a thriving bacterial ecosystem, the newcomers will not be able to establish themselves. They might live on for a while, contributing to removing nitrates and phosphates, but will eventually be out-competed and either skimmed away, or just lyse and release their cellular content back into the tank (which will cause phosphates and nitrates to increase again).

FWIW, why don't you believe that the bacterial strains chosen for Prodibio are ideal for reef tanks (especially if you are not familiar with the product)?

I was unclear. I am not familiar with how Prodibio is used, but I have read the patent covering this innovation and know which bacterial species is within it. Mostly spore-forming Bacilli. Unless it escaped me, I didn't see anything indicating that the species were isolated from actual coral reefs, which I believe would be of especial advantage in such a product, but rather because they are spore-forming (and can hence easily be packaged) and readily available.

Agathos
04/29/2010, 08:05 AM
[Bacterial growth rates] varies tremendously between different bacterial species. With optimal conditions the bacterium with the quickest growth rate, Vibrio natriegens, divides every 11 minutes (!). Other bacteria grow very slowly, with cell division only taking place after days, weeks, months or even years (bacteria found deep in the Earth crust is hypothesized to grow and divide extremely slowly, but then the nutrient accessibility is rather low).

It's hard to give an average growth rate since it varies so much between species and we don't really know which bacteria colonize our tanks (or do we?). But a few hours, given perfect conditions, sounds plausible for marine free-living bacteria. And the conditions in our tanks are pretty good: high temperatures and usually LOTS of available nutrients.

I've done some research. Gast et al (1998) studied bacteria in coral reefs outside of Curacao. The average growth rates of the bacteria here varied from 20 to 140 hours per generation, depending upon where in the reef water they were sampled. The scientists refer to other studies where the growth rates have been 2-5 hours per generation to 240 to 384 hours per generation (extremely fast and extremely slow). What this tells me is that the growth rate of typical reef bacteria can vary a lot, probably depending upon the actual reef.

Anyway, I assume our tanks present a much more hospitable environment to bacteria than real reefs. In our tanks the bacteria are not swooped out to sea continuously, we have closed systems that allow much higher concentrations. In addition, our tanks are much richer on nutrients allowing much higher populations and much quicker growth. I wouldn't be surprised if the high and stable temperatures we keep are also favorable.

Unfortunately, we still don't know what the growth rate in our tanks are. I woudl assume much faster than what's seen on actual reefs, but since this varies so much it's hard to feel confident about any guesses. I still believe it is on average "a few hours", but I'd like to see someone actually measure it.

Even with an average of what Gast and colleagues measured, 80 hours per generation, it would still mean that it would only take the bacterial population a little more than 3 days to be back to normal after a 50 % water change. I think it is safe to assume it is much, much quicker.

teesquare
04/29/2010, 08:44 AM
I've done some research. Gast et al (1998) studied bacteria in coral reefs outside of Curacao. The average growth rates of the bacteria here varied from 20 to 140 hours per generation, depending upon where in the reef water they were sampled. The scientists refer to other studies where the growth rates have been 2-5 hours per generation to 240 to 384 hours per generation (extremely fast and extremely slow). What this tells me is that the growth rate of typical reef bacteria can vary a lot, probably depending upon the actual reef.

Anyway, I assume our tanks present a much more hospitable environment to bacteria than real reefs.Possibly......but not if you consider the limited food sources. In the ocean - the diversity of just "resources" is something I think we struggle with duplicating in the artificial envirement In our tanks the bacteria are not swooped out to sea continuously, we have closed systems that allow much higher concentrations. Yes - but would this not also be a negative? - In that, a given strain will grow until it depletes the food source(s) that it has an affinity for. Then - it dies out. Or perhaps - like plankton culturing, when you forget to feed it - the population will crash. So - if the bacteria can grow faster in our tanks - being a closed system and without the knowledge of what exact species and what exact foods...well - you see what my quest ion is?In addition, our tanks are much richer on nutrients allowing much higher populations and much quicker growth. I wouldn't be surprised if the high and stable temperatures we keep are also favorable.

Unfortunately, we still don't know what the growth rate in our tanks are. I woudl assume much faster than what's seen on actual reefs, but since this varies so much it's hard to feel confident about any guesses. I still believe it is on average "a few hours", but I'd like to see someone actually measure it.

Even with an average of what Gast and colleagues measured, 80 hours per generation, it would still mean that it would only take the bacterial population a little more than 3 days to be back to normal after a 50 % water change. I think it is safe to assume it is much, much quicker.

Agathos
04/29/2010, 12:09 PM
I don't think the nutritions available in reef tanks are not diverse enough for the bacteria to reach high populations. Bacteria tend to be able to utilize simple organic and inorganic compounds (nitrate, phosphate, mono- and disaccharides, etc) which there are usually much more of in our tanks than on the reefs. Yes, some special metabolites will not be present in our tanks because we lack the natural producers of these, but bacteria in general are not dependent upon such. This is in contrast to more complex organisms who often have more stricter diets.

In any way, those marine bacterial species that require some metabolites that are not present in the tank, will die out and leave more nutrients and space to other bacterial species (although, I am not certain any such species exist, at least not which are meant to be in a reef environment), with the result being that the population plateau is reached nonetheless.

When it comes to dilution of bacterial population on natural reefs this is analogous to doing continuous water changes in our tanks. Huge amounts of bacteria is washed away and water with less bacteria is pouring in. This lowers the total bacterial population on the reefs. In our tanks, unless we do lots of water changes, this barrier to maximized population does not exist, and hence the population may grow until another parameter stops the growth (e.g. depletion of some essential nutrition).

teesquare
04/29/2010, 12:54 PM
I don't think the nutritions available in reef tanks are not diverse enough for the bacteria to reach high populations. But - which ones? Shouldn't we know this before making assumptions?Bacteria tend to be able to utilize simple organic and inorganic compounds (nitrate, phosphate, mono- and disaccharides, etc) which there are usually much more of in our tanks than on the reefs.I wonder if this is universally true...Are there not many more specialized species of bacteria - which perform some of the lesser understood bio-chemical functions - that require other compounds? Yes, some special metabolites will not be present in our tanks because we lack the natural producers of these, but bacteria in general are not dependent upon such. This is in contrast to more complex organisms who often have more stricter diets.

In any way, those marine bacterial species that require some metabolites that are not present in the tank, will die out and leave more nutrients and space to other bacterial speciesI suppose this is at the center of my questions - how important are these - that we know so little about? (although, I am not certain any such species exist, at least not which are meant to be in a reef environment), with the result being that the population plateau is reached nonetheless.

When it comes to dilution of bacterial population on natural reefs this is analogous to doing continuous water changes in our tanks. Huge amounts of bacteria is washed away and water with less bacteria is pouring in. That makes sense to meThis lowers the total bacterial population on the reefs. In our tanks, unless we do lots of water changes, this barrier to maximized population does not exist, and hence the population may grow until another parameter stops the growth (e.g. depletion of some essential nutrition).

Agathos
04/29/2010, 02:23 PM
If we knew it already we couldn't be making assumptions :).

Most bacteria are able to live off very simple compounds, that's all they need to synthesize the more complex molecules they need. Certainly, some bacteria require more complex molecules in their environment, and some have very strict diets too (obligate pathogens come to mind). But don't underestimate the complexity of available metabolites in a reef tank. We have literally thousands of different organisms there, living and dying and releasing their cell content into the water for others to consume, vitamins, fatty acids, proteins, saccharides, etc, etc. I believe that most of the marine reef bacteria that are beneficial to our tanks would find what they need of nutrients in our tanks. And those that require some weird by-product of one specific other organism's metabolism, and therefore perish in our tanks, are probably not crucial for our tanks. The space they would have filled will quickly be occupied by other bacteria that are better adapted to out tank's environment.

But it might be that some bacterial species are lost (or greatly reduced) as a tank matures (old tank syndrome, OTS) -- and this may cause a build-up of some nutrient, or toxic, or perhaps lead to lower production of some metabolite that is beneficial to the other bacterial species, or just some general perturbation of the biochemical network in the tank, which makes it harder for the microbial community as a whole and results in less bacteria in total and therefore less efficient biofilters. I think OTS was discussed earlier in this thread. A plausible mechanism for this decimation of one or more bacterial species is use of antibiotics and other preparations that are added to the tank.

But yeah, the more we discuss this the more I would like to see a study on the bacterial composition of our tanks (what species are there and how many of each?). My guess is that it actually varies from tank to tank (depending upon what we used to inoculate the tank initially, rock from Fiji?, rock from Bali?, etc; and how we have treated the tank thereafter). Differences in bacterial composition could cause differences in how the tanks react to different conditions, which again can explain that people have somewhat contradictory experiences when it comes to how to maintain reef tanks successfully. What works for one tank might not necessarily work for another if the microbial populations that help to maintain biochemical equilibrium and that synthesizes much of the different molecules, differ.

teesquare
04/29/2010, 03:22 PM
If we knew it already we couldn't be making assumptions :).Well...we could make one: That if we cannot know exactly what species, and at what ratio of total population of bacteria - or specifically what they consume - then....a refreshment of the general bacteria and the foods they would thrive on would provide a more natural "real" result in our aquaria. I feel that there would be many chemical additions which would no longer be necessary - *IF* we were able to do that practically ( and - for most of us - it is not practical)

Most bacteria Agreed - but that is "most".....what about some of the others that would normally occur in the ocean? Do we know of other food source specific bacteria?are able to live off very simple compounds, that's all they need to synthesize the more complex molecules they need. Certainly, some bacteria require more complex molecules in their environment, and some have very strict diets too (obligate pathogens come to mind)other than the "bad guys" -I meant in above comment. But don't underestimate the complexity of available metabolites in a reef tank. We have literally thousands of different organisms there, living and dying and releasing their cell content into the water for others to consume, vitamins, fatty acids, proteins, saccharides, etc, etc. I believe that most of the marine reef bacteria that are beneficial to our tanks would find what they need of nutrients in our tanks. And those that require some weird by-product of one specific other organism's metabolism, and therefore perish in our tanks, are probably not crucial for our tanks. The space they would have filled will quickly be occupied by other bacteria that are better adapted to out tank's environment.

But it might be that some bacterial species are lost (or greatly reduced) as a tank matures (old tank syndrome, OTS) -- and this may cause a build-up of some nutrient, or toxic, or perhaps lead to lower production of some metabolite that is beneficial to the other bacterial species, or just some general perturbation of the biochemical network in the tank, which makes it harder for the microbial community as a whole and results in less bacteria in total and therefore less efficient biofilters. I think OTS was discussed earlier in this thread. A plausible mechanism for this decimation of one or more bacterial species is use of antibiotics and other preparations that are added to the tank.I still prefer to forgo the artificial ingredients whenever possible - so rather than add antibiotics - I still prefer the thought ( tho still - just a thought due to the lack of practicallity) of adding live bacteria from the real envirement.

But yeah, the more we discuss this the more I would like to see a study on the bacterial composition of our tanks (what species are there and how many of each?). My guess is that it actually varies from tank to tank (depending upon what we used to inoculate the tank initially, rock from Fiji?, rock from Bali?, etc; and how we have treated the tank thereafter). Agreed - it would be interesting, and different from tank to tank I am sure.Differences in bacterial composition could cause differences in how the tanks react to different conditions, which again can explain that people have somewhat contradictory experiences when it comes to how to maintain reef tanks successfully. What works for one tank might not necessarily work for another if the microbial populations that help to maintain biochemical equilibrium and that synthesizes much of the different molecules, differ.Yep! - and exactly the case for refreshing the bacteria from time to time!
T

Baros
04/30/2010, 03:38 AM
Here's an interesting read.

http://cima.uprm.edu/~n_schizas/CMOB_8785/mutualism%20in%20reefs.pdf

Agathos
04/30/2010, 04:09 AM
Well...we could make one: That if we cannot know exactly what species, and at what ratio of total population of bacteria - or specifically what they consume - then....a refreshment of the general bacteria and the foods they would thrive on would provide a more natural "real" result in our aquaria. I feel that there would be many chemical additions which would no longer be necessary - *IF* we were able to do that practically ( and - for most of us - it is not practical)

Yes, refreshments with the exact bacteria that are supposed to be in your tank would work in those cases where these are somehow missing and no others have taking their niche in the ecosystem. Unfortunately, in most cases other microorganisms will have established themselves in their place and any newcomers will quickly be out-competed by the established old-timers. In addition, since we don't know much about which bacteria SHOULD ideally be in our tanks, adding refreshments can only be done by adding live rock, mud or water from natural reefs. Mud from NY or water from the North atlantic will NOT contain the same bacteria.

Agreed - but that is "most".....what about some of the others that would normally occur in the ocean? Do we know of other food source specific bacteria? I don't know of any free-living marine bacteria that would not find all the nutrients they need to thrive in our tanks. I repeat myself: the availability of diverse nutrients in our tanks is really, really high.

I still prefer to forgo the artificial ingredients whenever possible - so rather than add antibiotics - I still prefer the thought ( tho still - just a thought due to the lack of practicallity) of adding live bacteria from the real envirement.

Yes, adding artificial ingredients should be the last resort. In theory, it should be possible to maintain the right balance of bacteria through proper tank maintenance and care. But adding live bacteria to most tanks I believe only causes a temporary boost of your biofilter. In most tanks the existing bacterial population will not allow newcomers to establish themselves. At least, that's what I believe.

HerbanShaman
04/30/2010, 06:11 PM
I find this entire discussion of microbial diversity, nitrogen cycling, and microbial ecology quite fascinating. I think of old forests and the dynamics governing trees. There are certainly dominant species, but always others occupying little niches on the outskirts or in the understory. There are allelopathic interactions between tree species; quite common in both bacteria and algae too. I think we underestimate the potential marine mycotes, nematodes, trematodes, etc lurking invisibly and affecting these microbial communities.
As an example, take the tremendous diversity seen in sandbeds. In none of my three tanks do I see the same worms, micropods, etc. My friends tanks also differ. Why do they vary? Founder effects? Food sources? Competition? Disease?
I think our tanks are all quasi-stable. The stochastic introduction of some random brute bacteria that would create a "monoculture" is quite possible, depending on your tank etc. Cyanobacteria is the perfect example. Yet, on one occasion a random temperature and pH spike favored some random pathogen that decimated the redslime. It turned brown in 24hrs and didn't return for some time.
Could I ever repeat the cyanophage incident or microbial community shift again if I wanted to? Probably not ~_~.

Great discussion of reefs as ecosystems on a variety of scales!!! Hope this continues

mhaith
05/16/2010, 07:40 AM
The original purpose of this thread was to discuss options to add new (and theoretically different) bacteria from other (NSW or other) systems to our closed systems and thus, drive additional benefits.

A great discussion developed concerning whether bacterial additions to a stable system actually were a benefit as they may upset a balance or simply be a waste of time as they would soon be outcompeted.

As reported in this thread, about a month ago, I added a piece of live rock from another system to my fuge to 'recharge' my bacterial populations. I reported similar effects as store-bought bacterial regimens like MB7, Prodibio or Zeo.

After about 3 weeks, I started to see some Cyano reoccur and I once again traded out a rock in my fuge (from a different system). I had the same result with an apparent N/P reduction as the Cyano once again receded and there was a diminished film on the glass.

If it was simply additional quantity of the bacterial populations, then I would have seen long lasting results right (the rock didn't get plugged up or go away)? So, why would the effectiveness diminish over a similar period of time as say a Prodibio dose (2 weeks)?

My assumption is that the introduced bacterial population survived on different organics than the resident population before being outcompeted but then why would they be outcompeted?

Immature and anecdotal to be sure but I simply don't understand. Anyone want to take a shot as to what is going on?

mesocosm
05/18/2010, 08:17 PM
Greetings All !


Ahh you found this Christine. I meant to email both you and Gary to join this one :D
Hehe ... be careful what you wish for, Gresham. :lol:

BTW, this is a much better reference link ...
http://www.zeovit.com/forums/showpost.php?p=61104&postcount=17



@ Cliff: Apologies for appearing to ignore your PM for so long ... I really appreciated the thought. I've been watching this thread from the beginning, and I've been waiting for a natural break in the discussion before intruding with my crazed & twisted perspective.



Personally, I've not heard a convincing rational for thinking that more diverse bacteria is clearly better. ... Nor have I ... and I would suggest that bacterial "biodiversity" is an incredibly poor indicator of nutrient reduction rates, the effectiveness of biogeochemical processes, and the "health" of a marine aquarium.


These are a few of the systems that I play ... errr, work ... with on an almost daily basis ...

http://anemonelab.com/route66marine/00warehouse052010.jpg

We receive hundreds of corals into these raceways on a weekly basis. These hundreds of specimens come primarily from Australia and Indonesia, but we also regularly receive specimens from Puerto Rico, and periodically receive shipments from other geographic regions. In other words, I play ... err, work ... with systems that are subjected to an intensity & diversity of bacterial inoculation well beyond anything the vast majority of reefkeepers will ever experience, or could ever engineer. I have never observed any measurable benefit (whether it be rate of nutrient reduction, stability of biogeochemical processes, mitigation of invasive algae or photosynthetic bacteria, or system "health") from such sustained, diverse bacterial inoculation.

From a conceptual standpoint, I'm much more interested in the types of enzymes that a bacterial strain may contain when introduced into the systems. It is the potential behavior of these encoded molecules within a strain (along with the availability of coenzymes and nutrient substrates within the systems) that are critical ... not the number of bacterial strains per se.




... The workhorse bacteria of the system are going to be in biofilms on surfaces and beneath surfaces. ... Folks interested in the behavior of bacterial guilds in marine aquaria in general, and the behavior of bacterial guilds in carbon dosed marine aquaria specifically, should burn Christine's quote into their brains. It's not all about bacterial biomass ... it's about the metabolic behavior of the biofilms.


... So, can you directly inoculate that? Not really. ... I would respectfully disagree ... but only in specific circumstances. Such specific circumstances would require the presence of bacterial culturing vessels (commonly referred to as "zeoreactors", "ultralith reactors", and fluidized bed filters). The biofilms on the media within such culturing vessels are regularly & significantly "disrupted", i.e., the biofilm structure is ripped apart and surfaces that were occupied become open to attachment & colonization by strains introduced into the water column. Such new attachment & colonization would seem to me to constitute a direct inoculation. Something similar could occur within sediments should such sediments be disrupted by being "blasted" by a turkey blaster, or handheld submersible pump ... or by an aquarium resident such as a sand-sifting goby.

Apologies if I've wandered off into the tall irrelevant-quibble grass out in deep left field. I'm just sayin' ... :D



After about 3 weeks, I started to see some Cyano reoccur and I once again traded out a rock in my fuge (from a different system). I had the same result with an apparent N/P reduction as the Cyano once again receded and there was a diminished film on the glass. If it was simply additional quantity of the bacterial populations, then I would have seen long lasting results right ... ? Indeed. This is part of what I mean when I suggest that it's not all about bacterial biomass ... it's about the metabolic behavior of the biofilms.

BTW & FWIW ... I've always regarded the notion of bacterial inoculation, even (or especially) in coordination with "enzyme" powders and mineral flocculants, as a method to mitigate a significant, existing cyanobacteria bloom to be a weak husbandry response. I've always found the incredibly annoying hassle of siphoning out the visible cyanobacteria biofilm (repeating as necessary), cleaning the surfaces associated with the bloom (repeating as necessary), increasing flow across the surfaces where the cyanobacteria biofilm emerged, shortening the photoperiod for up to 2 weeks, and the reduction of available nutrients in the water column (with particular emphasis on phosphate concentration) to be a far more effective set of husbandry responses compared to the relatively expensive application of ill-defined proprietary products (... although such products have proven to be effective for some reefkeepers).

That being said, the inoculation of bacterial strains as a preventative tactic to inhibit an increase of cyanobacteria biomass before a bloom event makes lots of sense to me ... and is a tactic that we employ on a weekly basis in the systems pictured above.




JMO ... HTH
:thumbsup:

Agu
05/18/2010, 09:54 PM
"That being said, the inoculation of bacterial strains as a preventative tactic to inhibit an increase of cyanobacteria biomass before a bloom event makes lots of sense to me ... and is a tactic that we employ on a weekly basis in the systems pictured above."

And how do you employ that strategy ?

mesocosm
05/19/2010, 01:11 AM
Greetings All !


... And how do you employ that strategy ?
I start with a set of premises that includes the following:

- Cyanobacteria are ubiquitous & persistent, i.e., cyanobacteria are present everywhere (both within the system, and on the specimens that we're introducing), and cannot be eradicated from the water column, the surfaces of the system, or from specimens.
- The growth rate of cyanobacteria is extremely responsive to the availability of nutrients in the water column, and, perhaps more significantly, to the availability of nutrients within the microenvironment that they colonize.
- Cyanobacteria exist within a microenvironment that also contains non-photosynthetic bacteria.
- Cyanobacteria, and all other bacteria growing within the system, are subject to nutrient limitation, i.e., all of the cyanobacteria & non-photosynthetic bacterial strains present in the system will not exhibit an exponential growth rate if a critical nutrient is not present in a concentration that is prerequisite for an exponential growth rate.
- Cyanobacteria are in constant competition with non-photosynthetic bacteria (and other microorganisms) to secure the nutrients necessary to sustain growth & reproduction.

If these premises are true ... and there's lots of evidence in the literature to suggest that they are ... then it is possible to directly manipulate the growth rate of cyanobacteria by (A) controlling the availability of nutrients within the water column & within the microenvironment that the cyanobacteria have colonized, and, (B) increasing the biomass of non-photosynthetic bacteria that consume a nutrient that is critical to the growth rate of the cyanobacteria. The simultaneous application of these two tactics (controlling nutrient availability & increasing heterotrophic bacterial biomass) is how we employ the strategy.

More specifically ...

- System design & maintenance activities
- Initial inoculation with live rock
- Supplemental bacteria inoculation
- Labile carbon (a nutrient substrate) & vitamin (coenzymes & enzyme precursors) dosing

We have been conscious of nutrient introduction into the systems, and nutrient "movement" & alteration before there was water in the systems. Adequate protein skimmer sizing, adequate flow, frequent siphoning to remove detritus and other nutrient sequestering particulates, a GFO media reactor, passive GAC filtration, and a bacterial culturing vessel (a zeoreactor, which is nothing more than a "hybrid" fluidized bed filter) were all in place as soon as water was introduced into the systems. Live rock (both cured & uncured), was introduced immediately, bacterial inoculation using proprietary products from a variety of manufacturers was initiated 48 hours later, and "carbon dosing" began as soon as the water column demonstrated stable parameters of NH3/NH4 < 0.01 ppm, NO2 < 0.5 ppm, NO3 <= 5 ppm, PO4 < 0.03 ppm & > 0.01 ppm. pH 8.1 - 8.2, alkalinity ~172 ppm, and Ca ~ 440 ppm.




One of the concepts that oftentimes gets lost in these discussions is the necessity of having reduced nutrient concentrations in the water column before beginning to inoculate bacterial strains, and "carbon dosing".


... at low eutrophication levels [oligotrophic], an increase in nutrients allows an increase in the complexity of the food web, whereas at high levels of eutrophication [eutrophic], more nutrients may be channeled to a few dominating species, further decreasing the evenness of species distribution. ...

Prokaryotic Diversity - Magnitude, Dynamics, and Controlling Factors
Vigdis Torsvik, Lise Ovreas, Tron Frede Thingstad
Science, Vol 6, pp 1064-1066, 2002.
http://vsites.unb.br/ib/cel/microbiologia/artigos/diversidade.pdf

In other words, one might actually initiate, or exacerbate, cyanobacteria blooms by applying "carbon dosing" before adequately reduced nutrent concentrations in the water column have been achieved.


HTH
:thumbsup:

Spracklcat
05/19/2010, 07:51 AM
Hi Gary!

In retrospect, I agree with you completley about being able to inoculate with biofilm consortia, in the method you describe. I wonder though how much of the products on the market are made up of those types of bacteria, considering that in the bottle few actually are film-forming. A notable exception is MicrobeLift Special Blend--it clings to the bottle tenaciously, and stinks of sulfur, which is another thing common in biofilm bacteria. Don't know what they are growing in there though.

:) Christine

DJREEF
05/20/2010, 11:47 PM
One situation where I think bacterial additions may be a good idea is when you know that you have the wrong profile.

In particular, I'm referring to cyano. Once it gets well established, and especially when organic carbon dosing, it may very well be useful to add different species, assuming you can find a source that has bacteria in it that will thrive in your tank with your type of organic carbon added. :)

One potential way to do this is to get such additions from other reefers. I know that when I dose a lot of vinegar, I get lots of bacteria growing on my GAC that I periodically clean off. That white stuff (whether it is one species or hundreds of them) could easily be collected and might help seed a different aquarium that is having problems with cyano when dosing organic carbon. :)

I think this was one of the premises behind the sand swap that took shape through these boards a few years ago.

DJ

tmz
05/23/2010, 12:46 PM
I think influencing the environment in a closed system to enhance bacterial diversity is a better place to start than introducing new microbes which may quickly slip into trace population status, perish entirely or perhaps even upset existing beneficial balances.

For example, changing a carbon source could favor some bacteria over others. I've been dosing vodka for over 16 mos. I had a some persistent cyano in one tank in the system that has a sand bed. Following Randy's experience and advice, I switthced off about 25% of the vodka(8ml) for an equivalent amount of vinegar( 64ml) about 4 months ago. The cyano waned and has not returned.I've thought about adding other carbon sources to promote diversity but things are going very well as it is so I don't see a need to add others like ascorbic acid, glucose ,fructose etc.

prop-frags
05/26/2010, 08:14 PM
This is an amazing thread.
I'll not pretend to grasp many of the advanced concepts and topics within, but I am fascinated nonetheless.

I relate mostly to Paul's approach and commentary. I am a huge fan of using natural methods for my husbandry...I avoid adding "something from a bottle" if possible. For example, I am on the fence about GFO. I've never resorted to using it and have had success for many years. I've never jumped on the prodibio or vodka dosing or anything else like that; perhaps it's just a foolish lack of sophistication or real understanding of the underlying biological processes that this thread is chock full of...

I like the idea of introducing "fresh" bacteria frequently. Let them battle it out. Everything Gary said makes sense (I think! Some of it went over my head :wildone:)... in my layman's view I interpret it this way:
* cyano (or other non-desirable bacteria) are always present in some quantity
* like all bacteria, they need food
* all bacteria compete for food (some prefer pasta, while others like steak) but certain strains will flourish if we serve up a big ol' Las Vegas buffet of their favorites
* by limiting the preferred food supply for undesirables, or by introducing desirable types that also like that food, we can tell the undesirables to "get outta town"

Did I get that right?

Sudad
05/27/2010, 05:11 AM
In my opinion dosing bacterias could be very heplfully in tanks with different cyano problems and especially during the curing time after fresh liverock is introduced into a new tank.

The problem is, that fresh liverock brings normally a lot of beneficial animals like differnet copepodes, worms and mysides etc. into our tanks and they also survive normally the shipping from their source enviroment, but unfortunatelly they die mostly in our tanks during the curing time because of the ammonia and/or nitrite peak, which results from an instable bacteria population on the fresh liverock after the transport and some dead sponges. This must not be - with dosing commercial bacterial products during that time you could prevent this dying and this leads to a more stable aquarium later with a lot of small copepods and crustacees which are very important for the aquarium biology.

So, if the aquarium is stable with a good visual coral grow it's not necessary to dose all the time bacterias except you have some corals, that eats bacteria plankton e.g. Nephteas etc.

Time by time I recommand the dosing of bacterias, because many chemical and physical factors could influence the bacterial biodiversity in a tank and so these products prevent a depletion of bacterial variety.

To establish a new tank or if the aquarium has some problems e.g. cyanos, bryopsis or other visual problems the dosing of commercial bacterial products could help very often.

I prefer the bacterial product line of Microbe-Lift (especially the combination of Special Blend and Nite-Out II) and Prodibio (BioDigest and Bioptim).

Personally I had very good experiences with the Microbe-Lift bacterial products, which offer a better biodiversity and more alive cells per ml than most other commercial products.
Beside the typically nitrficational bacterias(Nitrosomas, Nitrosomonas, Nitrobacter etc.) they also offer some other bacterias like different sulfur-bacterias which are beneficial to prevent H2S-depots in the substrate.

Another advantage of dosing commercial bacterial products is, that other pathogene bacterias will be suppressed by the beneficial bacterias over the time.

mesocosm
05/27/2010, 08:29 AM
Greetings All !


... Did I get that right?
As a starting point ... yes. :thumbsup:



Another advantage of dosing commercial bacterial products is, that other pathogene bacterias will be suppressed by the beneficial bacterias over the time.From a theoretical perspective, I agree ... and there's no question that many anecdotal correlations supporting this perspective have been posted. However, it's perhaps worth pointing out that the literature suggests that this is not always the case ... particularly with regard to the potential impact on the bacterial guilds that inhabit a coral's mucus layer and the other microorganisms within a coral's holobiont.

Holobiont (coral) - a collective term referring to the totality of a coral animal, its endosymbiotic zooxanthellae, and the associated community of microorganisms.
( http://www.experiencefestival.com/holobiont )



For those who can get access to it, this one is perhaps worth the read ...

Teplitski & Kim Ritchie (2009) How feasible is the biological control of coral diseases?
Trends in Ecology & Evolution.Volume 24, Issue 7, July 2009, Pages 378-385




I think influencing the environment in a closed system to enhance bacterial diversity is a better place to start than introducing new microbes ... From my twisted & crazed perspective, this is entirely correct. The rush to start bacteria dosing before any underlying water column dissolved nutrient issues have been addressed (by lowering available N & P) has always struck me as a husbandry blunder. It is no accident that all of the major carbon dosing proprietary product line manufacturers recommend altering a system's water column chemistry before, or in tandem with, the application of their products. The only tweak to your statement that I would respectfully suggest is, '... influencing the environment in a closed system to enhance bacterial metabolic behavior is a better place to start than introducing new microbes" ...

... but maybe that's actually the same thing. :lol:


If they're willing to risk temporary brain injury from hard science overexposure, folks interested in why addressing the nutrient water column chemistry issues before applying bacterial culture products to their systems might want to take a look at this one (... for those not willing to risk the brain injury, what this article documents is the potential for bacteria populations to directly influence the growth rates of algae):

Danger et al (2007) Bacteria can control stoichiometry and nutrient limitation of phytoplankton.
Functional Ecology, Volume 21, Issue 2, Pages 202-210
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/117987987/HTMLSTART?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0




Less technology, more biology ... indeed. :bounce1:






JMO ... HTH
:D

Agathos
05/28/2010, 12:07 AM
Time by time I recommand the dosing of bacterias, because many chemical and physical factors could influence the bacterial biodiversity in a tank and so these products prevent a depletion of bacterial variety.

But unless the products contain bacteria suitable to live in the conditions offered in our tanks they will not be a permanent addition; rather they will just cause a temporary boost in tank metabolism before they die and release nitrogenous compounds and phosphate.

So are the commercial products mentioned in this thread actually based on bacteria that will succeed in colonizing our tanks, or do they just contain easy to culture, spore-forming, non-pathogenic bacteria? I have looked at the patent that presumably covers the Prodibio products, and I saw nothing that suggested this product contains carefully selected bacteria that are found on actual reefs.

Personally, I strive to maintain a system that closely resembles what is found in nature. I try to reproduce the different lighting, water chemistry and physical conditions that are found at reefs. Hence, I need a microbial ecosystem that works under these conditions and produces the same metabolic compounds that are produced on reefs. Adding just any bacteria willy-nilly will not comprise the microbial community that I am looking for, in the best case they will function as an ecosystem but use a different set of substrates and release a different set of products which are alien to the fish and corals I maintain; in best case my livestock will accept this without any problems, in the worst case they, or some of them, will die.

Again, this brings me back to the question of what these products actually contain and whether they are actually isolated from natural reefs. I am fairly confident that the products don't contain all the bacteria that are necessary to build the bacterial ecosystem I want, because it would be impossible to manufacture a product that does. My ecosystem contains hundreds of different bacterial species and strain, in the right proportion. This is impossible to commercialize manufacture and package. The only way to get this is to actually use fresh live rock (or mud, or water, or livestock) that are hosts to these bacterial communities.

Prodibio, and presumably other related products, contain a few (8-10?) bacteria selected because they are easy to manufacture, easy to package without die-off (spore-forming), non-pathogenic and exhibits some base metabolic power that is needed in our tanks. And hence I believe that could do good during start-ups and after antibiotic treatment in our tanks, to restore some metabolic ability, but I am not certain these could be permanent residents in our tanks and I am certain that these together will never form the bacterial ecosystem that I seek.

Pmoss
05/28/2010, 08:45 AM
I think I just earned a B.S reading this entire thing..... and I still know nothing in the grand scheme of it!

mhaith
05/28/2010, 10:34 AM
But unless the products contain bacteria suitable to live in the conditions offered in our tanks they will not be a permanent addition; rather they will just cause a temporary boost in tank metabolism before they die and release nitrogenous compounds and phosphate.


Are these products designed as a permanent addition or are they meant as a 'sponge' that are to be skimmed out of the water column prior to the release of N & P? Note the regimin calls for consistent reapplication.

Agathos
05/28/2010, 10:47 AM
Are these products designed as a permanent addition or are they meant as a 'sponge' that are to be skimmed out of the water column prior to the release of N & P? Note the regimin calls for consistent reapplication.

I believe the Prodibio product at least is designed to give a transient boost to the tank's ability to process waste, and I know that people here discuss using them as a permanent solution for replenishing diversity in their tanks.

tmz
05/28/2010, 11:13 AM
I think the fact that you consistently dose the microbes in the commercial product indicates that they won't sustain colonies in adequate numbers in your reef. Otherwise why keep dosing them?

prop-frags
07/07/2010, 08:24 PM
fascinating question... I wonder the same thing!
Is it simply a fact that our closed systems are missing a naturally occurring source of these "beneficial bacterial sources"?

tmz
07/08/2010, 12:40 AM
fascinating question... I wonder the same thing!
Is it simply a fact that our closed systems are missing a naturally occurring source of these "beneficial bacterial sources"?

Or the strains naturally ocurring in the tank dominate them, or they are cultured in conditions that vary significantly from a reef tank or something else entirely. Hard to say. But it's clear they need to be boosted while those that grow in your tank don't and will sort things out based on the conditions in th specific aquarium.
Varying the carbon source(ethanol, acetic acid, absorbic acid ,etc) rather than importing bacteria not indigenous to the aquarium can ,in my opinion , impact the diversity . Various strains have an advantage with different organic carbon sources and may dominate but not to the point of a monoculture . So some variability in the carbon source should promote a variety of strains. Wether or not that diversity is beneficial is questionable. For example using some vinegar in lieu of some vodka but still dosing both helped rid my system of patchy of cyano. This was a tip from Randy Farley .Presumably the bacteria favoring the acetate were able to outcompete the cyanobacteria better than the bacteria supported by ethanol. On the other hand , substituting some sugar caused problems for certain corals( scolimia and lobophylia). Perhaps the fructose/ glucose has some adverse effect on these coral's symbiont bacteria.
The vodka a vinegar method has worked very well for me in keeping NO3 and PO4 low with virtually no nuisance algae and no dicernible ill effects for about 18 months now.

DJREEF
07/08/2010, 09:26 AM
But unless the products contain bacteria suitable to live in the conditions offered in our tanks they will not be a permanent addition; rather they will just cause a temporary boost in tank metabolism before they die and release nitrogenous compounds and phosphate.

So are the commercial products mentioned in this thread actually based on bacteria that will succeed in colonizing our tanks, or do they just contain easy to culture, spore-forming, non-pathogenic bacteria? I have looked at the patent that presumably covers the Prodibio products, and I saw nothing that suggested this product contains carefully selected bacteria that are found on actual reefs.

Personally, I strive to maintain a system that closely resembles what is found in nature. I try to reproduce the different lighting, water chemistry and physical conditions that are found at reefs. Hence, I need a microbial ecosystem that works under these conditions and produces the same metabolic compounds that are produced on reefs. Adding just any bacteria willy-nilly will not comprise the microbial community that I am looking for, in the best case they will function as an ecosystem but use a different set of substrates and release a different set of products which are alien to the fish and corals I maintain; in best case my livestock will accept this without any problems, in the worst case they, or some of them, will die.

Again, this brings me back to the question of what these products actually contain and whether they are actually isolated from natural reefs. I am fairly confident that the products don't contain all the bacteria that are necessary to build the bacterial ecosystem I want, because it would be impossible to manufacture a product that does. My ecosystem contains hundreds of different bacterial species and strain, in the right proportion. This is impossible to commercialize manufacture and package. The only way to get this is to actually use fresh live rock (or mud, or water, or livestock) that are hosts to these bacterial communities.

Prodibio, and presumably other related products, contain a few (8-10?) bacteria selected because they are easy to manufacture, easy to package without die-off (spore-forming), non-pathogenic and exhibits some base metabolic power that is needed in our tanks. And hence I believe that could do good during start-ups and after antibiotic treatment in our tanks, to restore some metabolic ability, but I am not certain these could be permanent residents in our tanks and I am certain that these together will never form the bacterial ecosystem that I seek.

willy-nilly?

What scientific dictionary did you find that one in? I'm afraid I'm going to need a definition.

DJ

tmz
07/08/2010, 10:16 AM
DJ, I tend to agree since all of these products when used to boost bacterial activity require continual dosing which would not be needed if they were viable in the aquarium long term. Many of the bacterial concoctions being used along with carbon dosing were initially marketed for cycling speed ups.

Paul B
07/08/2010, 10:25 AM
The only way to get this is to actually use fresh live rock (or mud, or water, or livestock) that are hosts to these bacterial communities.


Yep, thats what I do

DJREEF
07/08/2010, 10:28 AM
DJ, I tend to agree since all of these products when used to boost bacterial activity require continual dosing which would not be needed if they were viable in the aquarium long term. Many of the bacterial concoctions being used along with carbon dosing were initially marketed for cycling speed ups.


No, I agree completely. I was just making a funny.

willy-nilly :lmao:

DJ

saltyair
12/15/2014, 10:12 AM
I know this is an old thread - but it is a fantastic read. These types of subjects are the reasons I come to this site

Timfish
12/15/2014, 12:32 PM
Yes, the role of microbes in reef ecosystems is a fascinating discussion. For more current info on the corals holobiont and the role of microbes in the health of corals "Coral Reefs in the Microbial Seas" by Dr. Forest Rohwer and Dr. Merry Youle is an excellent place to start. It's fairly inexpensive at around $20, a surprisingly enjoyable read and is very informative with excellent list of research publications for further reading.

acabgd
01/23/2016, 06:18 PM
I just wanted to revive this old thread and maybe get some others to read it. Some great info which is still very much hot topic. Hopefully we can also get some new information about bacterial diversity in our tanks.