Prodibio
- Thread starter bosborn1
- Start date
melev
Well-known member
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7651357#post7651357 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ROR
Maybe there is a test being conducted using placebos and we don't know it :eek2:
You mean us? :lol: Okay, someone crack one open and drink it, and let us know if you live to talk about it.
ZoeReef
New member
Hey Marc... I've been on the other end of a comment like that where I show my family something I consider obviously important in my tank and they look back at me blankly. "look..it moved!"
so help a rookie out.... what am I noticing
On the FWIW I dosed first time with Prodibio Digest. I put one ampule in as I have a fairly new (4 week) old system. I've had nagging slimy algae issues.
Ammonia - 0
Nitrites - 0
Nitrates - 0
Phosphates - 1
I don't think I'm going to add Bioptim yet (I have them in stock). I just want to see what Digest does by itself. I checked this morning and the skimmer continued to skim overnight.
Prior to adding the Digest I removed phosguard. Do I need to remove carbon as well?
so help a rookie out.... what am I noticing
On the FWIW I dosed first time with Prodibio Digest. I put one ampule in as I have a fairly new (4 week) old system. I've had nagging slimy algae issues.
Ammonia - 0
Nitrites - 0
Nitrates - 0
Phosphates - 1
I don't think I'm going to add Bioptim yet (I have them in stock). I just want to see what Digest does by itself. I checked this morning and the skimmer continued to skim overnight.
Prior to adding the Digest I removed phosguard. Do I need to remove carbon as well?
melev
Well-known member
I would think that you need to use the various components at the same time as they each work on something else. ReefBooster is the one we seem to shy away from, because it is very thick and oily.
Sorry to hear about your slime issues. As you can see in that closeup, I've got this red-issue going on. The tangs eat it, but I would rather not see it.
Sorry to hear about your slime issues. As you can see in that closeup, I've got this red-issue going on. The tangs eat it, but I would rather not see it.
ZoeReef
New member
You know what's funny. I explain very simple things about the aquariums to the kids and parents and they think I'm some type of Guru. It's funny because of things like..
Scott..err.. what is PE?
That being said; No refugium? That won't work. I'm counting on a refugium for my seahorses. All-In-One. . .
Scott..err.. what is PE?
That being said; No refugium? That won't work. I'm counting on a refugium for my seahorses. All-In-One. . .
ZoeReef
New member
Marc, in reading up on it, I thought the Bioptim was kind of a booster for Digest and caused it to work more effectively. Because I wanted to be careful on making a large change in the tank at one time, I had thought that perhaps just adding Digest by itself would begin a process that was somewhat slower. What u think?
cerreta
Premium Member
Andy, PE is polyp extension.
Shullat, Biotim is amino acids and some trace elements necessary for the optimal performance of bacteria in BioDigest.
Here is the official blurb:
BIO TRACE and BIOPTIM provide all the micro-nutrients that are necessary BUT which have already been consumed by the life in the aquarium during a previous biological digestion: selected amino acids, enzymes, natural vitamins (riboflavin), and surface agents from plants to facilitate the membranous absorption of the components by the cells.
They provide also trace elements: SULPHUR for proteins, IRON for plants and fish blood, COBALT for B vitamins and BORON for many products metabolised during tissue-building and organic breakdown, Calcium, Magnesium, Manganese, Molybdenum, Potassium, Zinc... .
Shullat, Biotim is amino acids and some trace elements necessary for the optimal performance of bacteria in BioDigest.
Here is the official blurb:
BIO TRACE and BIOPTIM provide all the micro-nutrients that are necessary BUT which have already been consumed by the life in the aquarium during a previous biological digestion: selected amino acids, enzymes, natural vitamins (riboflavin), and surface agents from plants to facilitate the membranous absorption of the components by the cells.
They provide also trace elements: SULPHUR for proteins, IRON for plants and fish blood, COBALT for B vitamins and BORON for many products metabolised during tissue-building and organic breakdown, Calcium, Magnesium, Manganese, Molybdenum, Potassium, Zinc... .
Hi all, I'm back for a couple of days- the thread continues to be interesting and useful. Oh, ZoeReef, no offense taken, just my dry, self-deprecating sense of humor. Doesn't always come across in posts. I noticed on the previous page that Scott had posted the basics for utilization. I was wondering if these came from the manufacturers? I'm sure there is a good reason for them, but I was wondering if they published their rationale, as I can't figure out the reason for a couple, specifically, heavy skimming and no refugium. Now I can sort of see the heavy skimming on the idea of removing planktonic bacteria from the water, but in most systems there are comparatively few bacteria in the water column compared to the substrate. Usually there are 10e4 - 10e6 per ml in the water, compared to sometimes 10e9 - 10e15 in the sand. I don't see any really significant benefit to removing the relatively small biomass, especially since the heavy skimming will also remove a lot of the amino acids that are being dosed in some of these products. The added quantities of bacteria could also be helpful with regards to coral nutrition and growth. Skimming is a nice insurance policy in case of product misuse however, to protect against massive blooms of bacteria and subsequent overnight oxygen depletion. I had one of these when I was experimenting with polygluconated calcium additives, and lost most of a 70 gallon tank in 6 hours.
Now, the refugium question; I really can't see a reason why that would be contraindicated. I would think that using these additives would be especially useful in a system with a refugium. The large biomass of bacteria in a refugium would seem like a great target for feeding- it would just increase the efficiency of heterotrophic and autotrophic processes that are already present. Added microbial biomass would sequester nutrients from the tank water, and form a good base of the food chain for refugium critters like pods, worms, etc, and the larvae produced by these are an ideal natural food source for corals and fishes alike. I use remote deep sand beds, and whenever I want a little added oomph out of them, I just take some long forceps and jam a sugar cube to the bottom of the 20" bucket. It diffuses up slowly, and the carbons are probably re-used dozens of times before eventual release. Each use utilizes energy and additional nutrients, taken from the water or other bacteria etc.
Of course, every system is different- what works well in my system, could trash another. But the general microbial processes are pretty similar in most. I think for all of these additive strategies, the biggest thing is starting in moderation and being consistent. Corals are also pretty adaptable creatures and are adept at maintaining their own preferred homeostasis when faced with varying environmental conditions. To aid them in this endeavor, keeping good flow would probably be the biggest help we can provide, as it will allow them to shed or excrete unwanted metabolites, bacterial species, or other challenges that additives like these may provide either on a transient or permanent basis.
So there is dissertation # 2.
I’ve gotta get a new hobby.
Now, the refugium question; I really can't see a reason why that would be contraindicated. I would think that using these additives would be especially useful in a system with a refugium. The large biomass of bacteria in a refugium would seem like a great target for feeding- it would just increase the efficiency of heterotrophic and autotrophic processes that are already present. Added microbial biomass would sequester nutrients from the tank water, and form a good base of the food chain for refugium critters like pods, worms, etc, and the larvae produced by these are an ideal natural food source for corals and fishes alike. I use remote deep sand beds, and whenever I want a little added oomph out of them, I just take some long forceps and jam a sugar cube to the bottom of the 20" bucket. It diffuses up slowly, and the carbons are probably re-used dozens of times before eventual release. Each use utilizes energy and additional nutrients, taken from the water or other bacteria etc.
Of course, every system is different- what works well in my system, could trash another. But the general microbial processes are pretty similar in most. I think for all of these additive strategies, the biggest thing is starting in moderation and being consistent. Corals are also pretty adaptable creatures and are adept at maintaining their own preferred homeostasis when faced with varying environmental conditions. To aid them in this endeavor, keeping good flow would probably be the biggest help we can provide, as it will allow them to shed or excrete unwanted metabolites, bacterial species, or other challenges that additives like these may provide either on a transient or permanent basis.
So there is dissertation # 2.
I’ve gotta get a new hobby.
cerreta
Premium Member
Olin, from what I understand, the algae in a refugium will die out once the probiotics are established. Algae prefer nutrient-rich water with phosphates and nitrates. Dosing Prodibio or comparable substances is supposed to replicate nutrient depleted waters like those found in a reef.
So its not a matter of choosing to keep a refugium or not, but rather a properly dosed probiotic system will not permit macroalgae to live.
So its not a matter of choosing to keep a refugium or not, but rather a properly dosed probiotic system will not permit macroalgae to live.
cerreta
Premium Member
Actually, algaes do not thrive very well in these environments, sps dominated shallow water reefs like those seen on the Great Barrier Reef. Deeper waters and areas of higher water turbidity do have more algae growth, but you won't see as many sps corals growing in this environment either.
DARKSILENTTYPE
New member
I just read a article about his somewhere about a weekago let me see if I can find it ..........
Ok here it is
http://www.underwatertimes.com/news.php?article_id=10879516342
DST
Ok here it is
http://www.underwatertimes.com/news.php?article_id=10879516342
DST
Yeah, that's a very good article- in essence the algae was providing the sugars and carbon source, functioning as a natural form of vodka/probio to stimulate microbial growth, which in turn cooked the corals by microbial pathogenesis. Definitely a good reason for moderation in dosing! Of course there are still other questions about the stimulatory effect, there is the possibility that the presence of macros had no effect on nutrition, but were doing something like turning on a genetic pathogenicity island with their secondary metabolites...but at first glance, the simplest explanation (food) seems likely. More bacteria=more disease. But some funky stuff does occur. If you really want to see some funky stuff do a search for vibrio AK1- it has a gene cluster that makes it harmless at lower temps, but will devastate corals with a 2 degree rise in temp as the genes are expressed.
As for keeping macros, I think the lower P/N levels in a dosed tank would probably be limiting for things like bryopsis and other cyanos since these are big time eaters, but I think in most cases true macros would do alright, nitrates and phosphates are undetectable in some of the tanks where I have happy macros. Microbial sequestering or not, these compounds will still be produced in a transiently free state before consumption, so some will be grabbed by microbes, and some by macros. Some sensitive macros might try to go sexual if the nutrient drop were rapid enough, but I think most would find a happy medium. If it's a problem though, a macro-less fuge is still an option and would still have similar benefits, just using microbial processes rather than photosynthesis to drive the food chain and nutrient cycles.
Good find DST, that study had already slipped my mind!
As for keeping macros, I think the lower P/N levels in a dosed tank would probably be limiting for things like bryopsis and other cyanos since these are big time eaters, but I think in most cases true macros would do alright, nitrates and phosphates are undetectable in some of the tanks where I have happy macros. Microbial sequestering or not, these compounds will still be produced in a transiently free state before consumption, so some will be grabbed by microbes, and some by macros. Some sensitive macros might try to go sexual if the nutrient drop were rapid enough, but I think most would find a happy medium. If it's a problem though, a macro-less fuge is still an option and would still have similar benefits, just using microbial processes rather than photosynthesis to drive the food chain and nutrient cycles.
Good find DST, that study had already slipped my mind!
kirstenk
23.5 Degrees
Thanks for the info Olin. From what I have observed this seems the most plausible but I am just a hobbyiest.
In the past two and a half weeks, I weaned the tank off everything and changed out 75 gallons of water. Cyano was going nutts. In my WC yesterday I sucked up all the cyano I could and I started back on Prodibio. 1 amp Digest and 2 amp Bioptim. Just Prodibio, nuttin else. Stopped Ozone. Will be doing Reefbooster on Wednesdays and doing the other two at the recommened 2 week intervals.
Some other things I have noticed.
Blue Millie and a couple other corals lack of polyp extension is due to the yellow clown goby.
Coral tissue is (for lack of a better word) smoothing out. I put the horrida thru TMPCC and it had immediate impact.
Polyps are looking more to the norm also.
