A food web

[WildOne]

@sixty_reefer said this: "more aquarists to intentionally start building a food web earlier on rather than treating it as something that appears later on via hitchhiking" in another thread. Now I think that's a down to earth practical subject I'd like to know more about before I start my tank.

What could we put in a tank, right from the start, to help out building the food web?

My first thoughts:
silicates, since it will help grow sponges and diatoms, and diatoms are food for pods
phytoplankton
varied pods and rotifers
maybe coralline spores
live rock if obtainable

 

[Paul B]

What could we put in a tank, right from the start, to help out building the food web?

My first thoughts:
silicates, since it will help grow sponges and diatoms, and diatoms are food for pods
phytoplankton
varied pods and rotifers
maybe coralline spores
live rock if obtainable

I go to the ocean and throw mud and rocks along with many pods in my tank. Of course I realize not everyone lives near the sea.

 

[sixty_reefer]

@sixty_reefer said this: "more aquarists to intentionally start building a food web earlier on rather than treating it as something that appears later on via hitchhiking" in another thread. Now I think that's a down to earth practical subject I'd like to know more about before I start my tank.

What could we put in a tank, right from the start, to help out building the food web?

My first thoughts:
silicates, since it will help grow sponges and diatoms, and diatoms are food for pods
phytoplankton
varied pods and rotifers
maybe coralline spores
live rock if obtainable

I think the dead shrimp method can introduce a broader range of beneficial microbes in comparison to bottled bacteria in a dry rock start.
Bottled bacteria mostly targets nitrifying bacteria while a decomposing shrimp also drives a wider mix of heterotrophic decomposers that will help build a more complex early microbial food web.

 

[BeanAnimal]

I go to the ocean and throw mud and rocks along with many pods in my tank. Of course I realize not everyone lives near the sea.

And asphalt, and nails.

I think the dead shrimp method can introduce a broader range of beneficial microbes in comparison to bottled bacteria in a dry rock start. Bottled bacteria mostly targets nitrifying bacteria while a decomposing shrimp also drives a wider mix of heterotrophic decomposers that will help build a more complex early microbial food web.

I would challenge the premise that "Bottled bacteria mostly targets nitrifying bacteria".

Assays of multiple products have shown many (most) to be mixed heterotrophic bacteria, with few containing true nitrifiers.

It follows that bottled bacteria as “mostly nitrifiers” vs a dead shrimp as creating a broader heterotrophic decomposer mix is speculation.

Sure that decomposing shrimp is organic and source of ammonia, but that does not automatically mean it builds a more complex or "early microbial food web". It just means it may be different than the bottled bacteria, or a different organic source.

What could we put in a tank, right from the start, to help out building the food web?

My first thoughts:
silicates, since it will help grow sponges and diatoms, and diatoms are food for pods
phytoplankton
varied pods and rotifers
maybe coralline spores
live rock if obtainable

The concept sounds great, but "food web" is an abstract term. While it sounds beneficial, it is similar to the abstract term "biodiversity".

Sure we can say that live rock has more life than dry rock. But two different "live" rocks will have different organisms... "food webs" if you will. Which one is better and by what metric? The same applies to the other inputs that you mentioned.

Is it "diversity" for the sake of "diversity" or are they generating some tangible benefit that would otherwise be lost?

So let's take the premise and ask a practical question:
What specific addition produces what specific biological outcome, and how are we measuring that outcome? Or are we just relying on the conventional wisdom that "more is better".

 

[areefer01]

Is it "diversity" for the sake of "diversity" or are they generating some tangible benefit that would otherwise be lost?

Or could diversity be nothing more than fuel for the marketing machine?

the conventional wisdom that "more is better".

Hmm...more ice cream is better, yes. Bacon? I know the answer.

 

[Paul B]

And asphalt, and nails.

Yes, that is the secret, so don't tell anyone.

 

[sixty_reefer]

I would challenge the premise that "Bottled bacteria mostly targets nitrifying bacteria".

Could you pick a bottle from this thread so that we at least confirm if there is any viable bacteria present

Bottled bacteria results - main thread

This is the main thread containing links to individual product posts where I'll share the AquaBiomics results of my bottled bacteria testing. I won't be debating the products' value, and I look forward to learning from your experience. When products are similar, I'll share them both in the same...

humble.fish

 

[BeanAnimal]

Could you pick a bottle from this thread so that we at least confirm if there is any viable bacteria present

Bottled bacteria results - main thread

This is the main thread containing links to individual product posts where I'll share the AquaBiomics results of my bottled bacteria testing. I won't be debating the products' value, and I look forward to learning from your experience. When products are similar, I'll share them both in the same...

humble.fish

Please don't shift the argument to "if any viable bacteria present".

You said "Bottled bacteria mostly targets nitrifying bacteria"

Ignoring speculation that it results in creation of less "complex microbial food webs" the statement of contents itself does not appear to be accurate.

Here are five random selections: Four have NO nitrifying bacteria, the one that does contain nitrifiers is still predominantly heterotrophs:

Zeobak

Biodigest

Dr. Tim's One and Only (image to large to warrant copying)
68 listed, with only 6 nitrifying, accounting for ~20% of the bacteria in the bottle, leaving 62 heterotrophs that comprise ~80% of the bacteria.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Or could diversity be nothing more than fuel for the marketing machine?

I would not argue that diversity is useless or never beneficial. Defining and measuring what “diversity” means is the problem.

As you point out, it is often used as marketing language, which is misleading at best. It also shows up in arguments as if it were a measured or proven benefit. I think that is even more problematic because it is not only misleading, but it gives authority to the bad marketing, and visa-versa.

 

[exnisstech]

What could we put in a tank, right from the start, to help out building the food web?

Live rock. JMO I can't provide any scientific evidence.

 

[WildOne]

Live rock is not something I'm sure I can obtain - especially live rock from the sea. I'm sure I'm not the only one in this circumstance, and I live far from the sea. Might be able to get something from the LFS tank. The sand is obtainable, at least. Either would contain a pretty large array of bacteria.

I started my freshwater tanks with mud and unfiltered tapwater. There was plenty of bacteria for nitrifying in there. Getting live sand should be more then enough for that function. Plenty of bottles will have those too if I were to despair, and so will just about anything from saltwater - a fish, a coral, a dead shrimp. Thats not really what my post was intended to be about, though I guess they do eat ammonia.

Bacterial decomposers are probably pretty abundant too. They are likely present in a large concentration on anything that comes from the ocean floor.

I find the Rhodopseudomonas palustris interesting. I suspect its more interesting finicky functions - like pesticide/contaminant destruction - don't happen in any and every environment. And I suppose the strain matters, too.

My list should have had the basic CUC, too, even if they're not added RIGHT from the start. I should fins a list of what snail eats what type of algea, though I'm sure most have a pretty diverse appetite.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Live rock is not something I'm sure I can obtain - especially live rock from the sea. I'm sure I'm not the only one in this circumstance, and I live far from the sea. Might be able to get something from the LFS tank. The sand is obtainable, at least. Either would contain a pretty large array of bacteria.

Even a cup of sand from another local reefer or the LFS will add bacteria and other fauna. Ask your LFS if they have live rock. Many take dry rock and place it in systems to "cure".

My list should have had the basic CUC, too, even if they're not added RIGHT from the start. I should fins a list of what snail eats what type of algea, though I'm sure most have a pretty diverse appetite.

Many snails are opportunistic and will eat a wide variety of things.

My personal advice would be to not overthink building "food webs". The live sand will help, as will any live rock. But without, the system will just take a bit longer to progress. The great thing is that reef tanks are not short term endeavors.

 

[areefer01]

The great thing is that reef tanks are not short term endeavors.

Needs to be a banner as this is very true. It is not a sprint but rather a marathon and then some.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Live rock is not something I'm sure I can obtain - especially live rock from the sea. I'm sure I'm not the only one in this circumstance, and I live far from the sea. Might be able to get something from the LFS tank. The sand is obtainable, at least. Either would contain a pretty large array of bacteria.

Which limits the utility of this hypothesis to getting stuff (sand, rubble, whatever), from existing tanks.

 

[WildOne]

I agree that tanks are not short term projects at all. However I think the food web is actually important, and that I should fill vacant holes in it as I can. Especially the larger holes. Too many people end up with hair algea, cyano and a bunch of other things overtaking their aquarium.

While there is a drastic lack of good information on aquatic ecology, I'd try to get more or less all the building blocks in there. There is very little good data on a lot of the food web. I found that some pods seem very present in cyano blooms, but not which ones and if they actually ate them. Same for cilliates, but they're not for sale in packages. Some bacteria is bound to be helpful for those, but we don't know which ones. Having predators for an array of blooms of "uglies" sound like a pretty good start, particularly to prevent reaching level of infestation people struggle to get rid of.

The lack of knowledge reduces a lot of filling those ecological niches with "lets get as much variety as possible and pray we got the useful one and not too many pests". One better way to get those would be to get sand or rocks from someone who beat the same issue. But almost none of us have microscope to actually know if its the same issue, so its a best guess. And when biologists struggle to identify species, most of us will be hopeless.

I want to get some sponges. Among other thing, their ability to eat bacteria is a good potential way to reduce bacterial load in case of disease. But I am also limited to try to get a bunch of varied ones and hope I get some stuff that eats coral diseases.

And getting sponges at all may be a challenge if I cannot obtain live rock. While I could get rock from someone else, people usually do not put silicates in their tanks, which is limiting sponges a lot. I'm hoping for spores in the sand. Do sponges have spores?

As anyone here tried to dump coralinne spores early ion their tank to see if the algea takes hold right from the start and competes with other algea? That may be a good thing to try.

 

[Paul B]

The great thing is that reef tanks are not short term endeavors.

Of course I believe this. The vast majority of reef tanks are 2 or 3 years old and I don't understand why.

A reef tank should be immortal. We hear all the time that I am setting up my 5th tank or 7th tank. What happened to all the other tanks you set up?

I don't get it, maybe it's me.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

FWIW, non photosynthetic sponges of significant size are quite challenging. There also is a lack of useful information whether sponges play much useful role, but I like and encourage them.