Bacterial Diversity Methods

[mhaith]

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]

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]

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Here's an interesting read.

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

 

[Agathos]

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]

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]

DIY bacterial regimens

DIY bacterial regimens

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]

Greetings All !

Ahh you found this Christine. I meant to email both you and Gary to join this one

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 ...

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' ...

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.