Analyzing a Bacterial Method for Dinoflagellates (and cyano?)

[Cruz_Arias]

Some ideas developed over the summer collaborating with @taricha

The nuisance benthic organism exists on a particular surface for a reason not by coincidence.

High density populations need a high concentration of food, greater than supplied by the water.

Bacteria are often closely associated with most organisms. The bacteria break down organic matter which a nuisance organism can use (N and P, for example) and the nuisance organism, typically photosynthetic, supplies organic carbon exudates to the bacteria. This mutualism may be the basis of the persistence of nuisance organism growth.

Particulate organic carbon can become concentrated, dissolved organic carbon cannot. High local concentrations of organic matter can easily be achieved. These fertile islands with the aid heterotrophic bacteria can become the home of most nuisance organisms. The high concentration of organisms can only last as long as fertile island does.

They also enjoy the nutrient rich coral mucus.

 

[Victoria M]

Using fresh air, low in co2, is very important. Plumb it to the Aqualifter and plumb an independent air intake for your skimmer.

Don't forget the airline valves to the wooden air stone and your skimmer air intake.

Are you saying the aqualifter used for ATO can be used for the airstone?

 

[Cruz_Arias]

Are you saying the aqualifter used for ATO can be used for the airstone?

It's an air and high moisture pump that they rebranded for the hobby.

 

[Idoc]

Don't forget the airline valves to the wooden air stone and your skimmer air intake.

Is it best to put the wooden airstones in the sump between the bubble trap baffles before the return pump chamber, within the return pump chamber, or in the display tank directly? I saw your post earlier suggesting placement within a bubble trap baffle and that the return pump sending the bubbles to the display tank would further break the bubbles into nano bubbles.

 

[Cruz_Arias]

Is it best to put the wooden airstones in the sump between the bubble trap baffles before the return pump chamber, within the return pump chamber, or in the display tank directly? I saw your post earlier suggesting placement within a bubble trap baffle and that the return pump sending the bubbles to the display tank would further break the bubbles into nano bubbles.

Depending on return pump flow rate actually...

You can place the wooden air stone in the baffle section if it's a down draft design or you can place the air stone, zip tied close to the return pump intake...

In both scenarios, you'll be using the air line valve to reduce the volume without sacrificing the pressure needed to force air through the fine fine wooden phloem pores.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

The regimen teaches how to keep the sand and turn it over and how to expose the unreacted organics in the sandbed. We stir a section of the sandbed, while actively bubbling, a third or a fourth at a time.

Aeration and continued aeration, with lower co2 air, will help you keep the system aerobic. That will also impact the sandbed, positively, up to 2 inches deep, approximately.

How does low CO2 air keep it more aerobic than ordinary indoor air? The amount of O2 in each is not appreciably different.

 

[Cruz_Arias]

How does low CO2 air keep it more aerobic than ordinary indoor air? The amount of O2 in each is not appreciably different.

Dissolved O2 doesn't change much in the water column, but CO2 equilibrium is affected significantly.

We're aiming for around 400ppm CO2.

 

[Dan_P]

The microbiome is everywhere!

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Dissolved O2 doesn't change much in the water column, but CO2 equilibrium is affected significantly.

We're aiming for around 400ppm CO2.

Ok, you just used the word aerobic, which is O2 so I wanted to clarify.

 

[CS Reefer]

They also enjoy the nutrient rich coral mucus.
[/QUOTE

I had an aggressive Dinoflagellates issue, in a bare bottom tank, this makes sense

 

[taricha]

A case study or studies on a random system would be interesting in conjunction with the analyzing of the method, right @taricha ?

Thoughts? Concerns?

Definitely would love to have more data than just what I can extract from my own tank. Reports with careful observations and pictures are always helpful imo for getting my head around what's going on.
Still thinking through what data would be useful and measurable to compare across multiple hobbyists and systems.
here's some ideas bouncing around...

If hobbyists had O2 meter that would be fantastic, but I don't think those are common.
Alk and pH - together to track CO2 in water. But unless these are accurate, it's not useful.
[Alk needs to be done with titration, either kit or DIY - not hanna checker. And pH needs to use something like a Borax (pH3.56 @20C) and a Cream of Tartar (pH9.23 @ 20C) 2 point calibration check thanks to Jim Welsh here. Need pH error well less than 0.1]
Amount of material siphoned from tank and skimmed out would be great, but will need pictures to compare a lot of thin skimmate, vs a small amount of darker skimmate.

Measuring NO3 and PO4 in the water broken down from the debris in the tank would be great - I'm starting to think that water chemistry tests after waste-away may tell us something about composition of the grunge it's been eating. unfortunately I think the cloudy water bloom might consume it all too fast.

...just some thoughts.

 

[Cruz_Arias]

Definitely would love to have more data than just what I can extract from my own tank. Reports with careful observations and pictures are always helpful imo for getting my head around what's going on.
Still thinking through what data would be useful and measurable to compare across multiple hobbyists and systems.
here's some ideas bouncing around...

If hobbyists had O2 meter that would be fantastic, but I don't think those are common.
Alk and pH - together to track CO2 in water. But unless these are accurate, it's not useful.
[Alk needs to be done with titration, either kit or DIY - not hanna checker. And pH needs to use something like a Borax (pH3.56 @20C) and a Cream of Tartar (pH9.23 @ 20C) 2 point calibration check thanks to Jim Welsh here. Need pH error well less than 0.1]
Amount of material siphoned from tank and skimmed out would be great, but will need pictures to compare a lot of thin skimmate, vs a small amount of darker skimmate.

Measuring NO3 and PO4 in the water broken down from the debris in the tank would be great - I'm starting to think that water chemistry tests after waste-away may tell us something about composition of the grunge it's been eating. unfortunately I think the cloudy water bloom might consume it all too fast.

...just some thoughts.

Up to this point, Dave, I really didn't concern myself with trying to explain the intricacies of the biological, chemical, and bio-chemical processes.

I'll see how I can help.

The mechanical side was the easiest to teach and explain so that was what was taught.

Aerate efficiently without premature foaming,

Dose bacterias with vodka/ethanol to trigger a reaction.

Then extract excess bacterias via protein skimming.

It really is that simple stretched out over several days.

Timing and dosing can be extended or shortened, depending on efficiency of aeration.

 

[Dan_P]

Definitely would love to have more data than just what I can extract from my own tank. Reports with careful observations and pictures are always helpful imo for getting my head around what's going on.
Still thinking through what data would be useful and measurable to compare across multiple hobbyists and systems.
here's some ideas bouncing around...

If hobbyists had O2 meter that would be fantastic, but I don't think those are common.
Alk and pH - together to track CO2 in water. But unless these are accurate, it's not useful.
[Alk needs to be done with titration, either kit or DIY - not hanna checker. And pH needs to use something like a Borax (pH3.56 @20C) and a Cream of Tartar (pH9.23 @ 20C) 2 point calibration check thanks to Jim Welsh here. Need pH error well less than 0.1]
Amount of material siphoned from tank and skimmed out would be great, but will need pictures to compare a lot of thin skimmate, vs a small amount of darker skimmate.

Measuring NO3 and PO4 in the water broken down from the debris in the tank would be great - I'm starting to think that water chemistry tests after waste-away may tell us something about composition of the grunge it's been eating. unfortunately I think the cloudy water bloom might consume it all too fast.

...just some thoughts.

OK, I admit it. I got excited reading these ideas. Here are a few more...

@taricha and I are studying “just” cyanobacteria growth for several species and that turns out to be very complicated in terms of what to measure and how to grow the cyanobacteria. In a study of grunge reduction, it seems like an order of magnitude more complicated. For one thing, exactly what is grunge?

Where does it come from? How much is too much? Where is this grunge located? Does location define in part what grunge is? Does grunge vary between systems? What data lead us to consider grunge is something to get rid of? I think if we are to study grunge digestion across systems, we would need to clarify some of this so that we could understand why the data we collect varies between systems.

Another question about the growing trend to add bacteria to a system to “cure” some malady is why aren’t the aquarium bacteria disgesting the grunge? Besides coming back to the question of what is grunge, we should be wondering how Dr. Tim knows what my system needs in terms of bacteria population for digesting my possibly unique blend of grunge? And speaking of digestion, what is meant by that promise of probiotics?

Aerobic digesters in water purification plants produce lots of sludge, nitrates, phosphates and dissolved organic compounds. If we are comparing data across systems, should we be measuring something related to the digestion output? No3 and PO4 are easy, DOC not so much.

I think @taricha is setting the example of how we could compare probiotics and sludge digestion across systems. We would need to firm up the “analytical” approach to get meaningful data. We could tap into @Rick Mathew to determine how many systems we might need to study given the variation in this sort of approach.

 

[Cruz_Arias]

Definitely an entire lifetime of experiments here... LoL

 

[Dan_P]

Definitely an entire lifetime of experiments here... LoL

 

[taricha]

Some ideas developed over the summer collaborating with @taricha

The nuisance benthic organism exists on a particular surface for a reason not by coincidence.

High density populations need a high concentration of food, greater than supplied by the water.

Bacteria are often closely associated with most organisms. The bacteria break down organic matter which a nuisance organism can use (N and P, for example) and the nuisance organism, typically photosynthetic, supplies organic carbon exudates to the bacteria. This mutualism may be the basis of the persistence of nuisance organism growth.

Particulate organic carbon can become concentrated, dissolved organic carbon cannot. High local concentrations of organic matter can easily be achieved. These fertile islands with the aid heterotrophic bacteria can become the home of most nuisance organisms. The high concentration of organisms can only last as long as fertile island does.

This whole concept needs its own thread one day when we feel up to it.

for others following - here's a microscope video I took of what we're up against.
Dino and cyano community with active bacterial associates


check the video at 0:30 and 3:30 for a good view of the wiggling bacteria in and around the dinoflagellate mucus mat.

 

[taricha]

I really didn't concern myself with trying to explain the intricacies of the biological, chemical, and bio-chemical processes.

I'll see how I can help.

The mechanical side was the easiest to teach and explain so that was what was taught.

Aerate efficiently without premature foaming,

Dose bacterias with vodka/ethanol to trigger a reaction.

Then extract excess bacterias via protein skimming.

It really is that simple stretched out over several days.

Yep. Simple in concept.
There are a bunch of products and methods in this hobby that are simple in concept, but don't work. Either there's a lot of liars, or the explanations are too simple and the devil's in the details.

There are a number of ideas in this method that could be useful elsewhere, along with other methods for nuisance control - that is - IF we actually understand what the effect is we're creating.
You'll occasionally see a lot of people battling nuisances by doing several different things at once that actually work against each other.

[I'm Jonathan, BTW]

 

[taricha]

For one thing, exactly what is grunge?

Where does it come from? How much is too much? Where is this grunge located? Does location define in part what grunge is? Does grunge vary between systems? What data lead us to consider grunge is something to get rid of? I think if we are to study grunge digestion across systems, we would need to clarify some of this so that we could understand why the data we collect varies between systems.

Another question about the growing trend to add bacteria to a system to “cure” some malady is why aren’t the aquarium bacteria digesting the grunge? Besides coming back to the question of what is grunge, we should be wondering how Dr. Tim knows what my system needs in terms of bacteria population for digesting my possibly unique blend of grunge? And speaking of digestion, what is meant by that promise of probiotics?

Aerobic digesters in water purification plants produce lots of sludge, nitrates, phosphates and dissolved organic compounds. If we are comparing data across systems, should we be measuring something related to the digestion output? No3 and PO4 are easy, DOC not so much.

If we want to know about people's grunge, let's make it simple. A grunge test anyone can do:
Two bottles. In a dirty corner of a tank, scoop up 50 mL (4 Tbsp) of substrate from the top of the sand in each bottle. fill each bottle to 1L of tank water. On bottle gets nothing (control), the other gets 1mL/day of Waste Away for 3 days. Bubble both bottles with just an airline tube for 3 days.
after 1, 2 and 3 days: measure the waste-away bottle for PO4, NO3, and if there's cloudiness quantify it too - run cloudy sample through hanna ULR P meter with distilled water as the sample blank.
After 3rd day measure the control bottle and compare.

This could answer a big bulk of the things we're wondering about.
My guess is our grunges may look quite different, though will have some things in common - everyone feeds their fish.

 

[Dan_P]

If we want to know about people's grunge, let's make it simple. A grunge test anyone can do:
Two bottles. In a dirty corner of a tank, scoop up 50 mL (4 Tbsp) of substrate from the top of the sand in each bottle. fill each bottle to 1L of tank water. On bottle gets nothing (control), the other gets 1mL/day of Waste Away for 3 days. Bubble both bottles with just an airline tube for 3 days.
after 1, 2 and 3 days: measure the waste-away bottle for PO4, NO3, and if there's cloudiness quantify it too - run cloudy sample through hanna ULR P meter with distilled water as the sample blank.
After 3rd day measure the control bottle and compare.

This could answer a big bulk of the things we're wondering about.
My guess is our grunges may look quite different, though will have some things in common - everyone feeds their fish.

Nice idea. I just received a bottle of Waste Away “for aquariums”. I believe that you used “for reefs”.

I assume these are done in the dark. Aluminum foil wrappped?

The water:substrate ratio in the test is about what I have in the aquarium.

The 1mL/day is high but I understand your thinking. I may run a series with diluter mixtures just to see what happens in the test.

I may supplement your test idea by letting both samples go longer. Aquarium water by itself will generate ammonia and nitrate over several weeks. In any case, I'll generate some numbers.

 

[Cruz_Arias]

Yep. Simple in concept.
There are a bunch of products and methods in this hobby that are simple in concept, but don't work. Either there's a lot of liars, or the explanations are too simple and the devil's in the details.

There are a number of ideas in this method that could be useful elsewhere, along with other methods for nuisance control - that is - IF we actually understand what the effect is we're creating.
You'll occasionally see a lot of people battling nuisances by doing several different things at once that actually work against each other.

[I'm Jonathan, BTW]

LoL true. Like I mentioned, I'll explain what we saw in the aerated digester systems.

Maybe the white paper on ATAD could bridge a few gaps faster?