Bacteria bottle

mkereefer · Jun 25, 2022

fishboy1 said:
Hi everyone I have just bought a bottle of fritz 460 zyme, Has anyone used this as I replaced Dr tims as it did nothing in my tank.

no ive never used that i usually just use Dr Tims interesting that it didnt do anything.

sixty_reefer · Jun 25, 2022

Dan_P said:
Are the articles reporting on tests of specific bottled bacteria products? Which products?

the article is reporting on how beneficial bacteria and diversity is removed from reef aquaria with substantial evidence, the only way after is to have to use bottled bacteria to repair the damage done

Spare time · Jun 25, 2022

Were you using waste away previously?

Dan_P · Jun 25, 2022

sixty_reefer said:
.

?

Did you forget to post article links or titles?

Dan_P · Jun 25, 2022

sixty_reefer said:
the article is reporting on how beneficial bacteria and diversity is removed from reef aquaria with substantial evidence, the only way after is to have to use bottled bacteria to repair the damage done

OK, so not several papers but an internet article we can’t see any more. so really no data available then. Thanks for trying.

sixty_reefer · Jun 25, 2022

Dan_P said:
OK, so not several papers but an internet article we can’t see any more. so really no data available then. Thanks for trying.

Let me know if you feel the same way after you understand this study

Bacterial Counts in Reef Aquarium Water: Baseline Values and Modulation by Carbon Dosing, Protein Skimming, and Granular Activated Carbon Filtration

What are the bacteria populations in the water column of reef tanks, and how does that value compare with bacterial counts in authentic reef water? Does carbon dosing indeed increase water column bacteria populations (i.e., is growth carbon limited)? Does mechanical filtration (protein skimming...

reefs.com

Spare time · Jun 25, 2022

sixty_reefer said:
the article is reporting on how beneficial bacteria and diversity is removed from reef aquaria with substantial evidence, the only way after is to have to use bottled bacteria to repair the damage done

.... or to not run a skimmer. However, these bottled bacterias do not state whether they live primarily in the water column or on surfaces. I do know what you are getting at though. I don't run a skimmer because I don't want to sterilize my water column (plus I already run about 1ppm nitrate so it would make things worse).

Dan_P · Jun 25, 2022

sixty_reefer said:
Let me know if you feel the same way after you understand this study

Bacterial Counts in Reef Aquarium Water: Baseline Values and Modulation by Carbon Dosing, Protein Skimming, and Granular Activated Carbon Filtration

What are the bacteria populations in the water column of reef tanks, and how does that value compare with bacterial counts in authentic reef water? Does carbon dosing indeed increase water column bacteria populations (i.e., is growth carbon limited)? Does mechanical filtration (protein skimming...

reefs.com

This is an old Feldman article that has nothing to do with the point I was making. The premise that bottled bacteria ”do something” beneficial in an aquarium that the aquarium bacteria don’t is not supported by scientific data. The manufacturers‘ claims seem to be wishful thinking.

sixty_reefer · Jun 25, 2022

Spare time said:
.... or to not run a skimmer. However, these bottled bacterias do not state whether they live primarily in the water column or on surfaces. I do know what you are getting at though. I don't run a skimmer because I don't want to sterilize my water column (plus I already run about 1ppm nitrate so it would make things worse).

This would probably mean that your tank has everything you need and you doing something right. Bottled bacteria is not a solution for everyone, to be honest is not even something I would use as I can understand how it works, although it’s wrong to say that it doesn’t work also, in occasionally situations were would be beneficial as the end used didn’t knew how to use the existing bacteria in the first place.

sixty_reefer · Jun 25, 2022

Dan_P said:
This is an old Feldman article that has nothing to do with the point I was making. The premise that bottled bacteria ”do something” beneficial in an aquarium that the aquarium bacteria don’t is not supported by scientific data. The manufacturers‘ claims seem to be wishful thinking.

Taricha also shown bottled bacteria to do what it says, maybe you would respect his work.

sixty_reefer · Jun 25, 2022

taricha said:
So What DOES Waste Away Do?
Most of my posts in this thread have been showing that bacteria in Waste Away bottle seemingly don't do anything measurable, but just as importantly - the media in the WA bottle does a lot.

So here's a demo of what WA (a carbon-rich media) does in terms of nutrient reduction and comparing that with a straight carbon source, vodka.

I started with a gallon of tank water, added Fritz F/2 media at half strength and half a salifert scoop of crushed fish flake then bubbled the result for a day or two to get the water nutrients semi-stable.

Starting nutrient level: 51ppm NO3, 2.61ppm PO4
I then split it into 3 bottles that I bubbled continuously in the dark. Control got nothing, 2nd got double recommended doses of Waste Away, and the 3rd bottle got vodka that was 1/6th of the WA (approximately carbon equivalent based on earlier O2 consumption measurements)

So here's what it looks like

Stars indicate which days WA and Vodka were added.
The control became more Carbon Limited around day 5 and nutrient reduction slowed a lot.
The Waste Away and Vodka treatments behaved really similarly to each other. In Phosphate, after day 6, they stayed within about one test error of each other, though the WA was almost always the lower one.
In nitrate, the difference was a little more clear - WA was consistently lower and became (and stayed) zero/undetectable on days 11&12.

Maybe the data simply says that a little more vodka was needed to have same carbon content as the WA. But it also might suggest that Waste Away is better at lowering NO3 vs PO4 than an equivalent carbon dose. Why do I say that?
Well, a recommended dose of WA adds about 0.03ppm PO4, so my 4 double doses added ~0.24ppm PO4 total. Yet, the final WA PO4 level was the same or lower than the vodka. This indicates that more PO4 uptake is happening in the WA treatment, and therefore the NO3 uptake ought to also be higher, as the data appears to indicate it is.

Where did the nutrients go?
Biomass, mostly.
Although some N and C gasses off, most went into cells.
Every day I "skimmed" the bottles by submerging an airstone for 10 minutes and putting a paper towel at the bottle opening to absorb the foam that rose up the bottle neck. This removed a few tenths up to a mL every day. So some nutrients left by skimming.
But the biggest place the nutrients went was into bacterial growth.

This colorless filamentous fuzzy bacterial stuff was at the bottom of each bottle, and more at the bottom of the WA and Vodka bottles than the control. Also the airline for each bottle grew a biofilm thick enough to make it feel really slimy. The sides of the bottles probably have similar growth.

As far as how applicable this is, the nutrient drops here might seem extreme and the doses might seem heavy and perhaps they are. But not unheard of.
The bottles got a Carbon equivalent of 0.33mL vodka per L of water spread over 10 days.
For comparison, this Bacterial Method for Dinos (and cyano) using WA and vodka that I played with before results in a carbon equivalent of 0.35mL vodka per L of tank water spread over 6 days (and half of that is added in just 2 days)

Summary: Ongoing heavy Waste Away use can be expected to reliably create low PO4 and even lower (N-limiting) NO3 levels. This is most likely the mechanism for why Waste Away can sometimes blunt nuisance growth.

@Dan_P

Dan_P · Jun 25, 2022

sixty_reefer said:
@Dan_P

I have pointed out to @taricha that his experiments show bottled bacteria can grow if you feed them a banquet, but the experiments do not bring us any closer to understanding what bottled bacteria is actually doing in an aquarium that aquarium bacteria are not doing already. It is a tough question but a fair one. It was his data on multiple products the pushed me further into the camp that thinks bottled bacteria (not nitrifying bacteria, that can be shown to actually accomplish something) might be snake oil. We are still on speaking terms

He might have time to join in here and remind me of some important missing facts.

So, we still do not have data that shows, under aquarium conditions, what if anything, these bottled bacteria products are doing.

sixty_reefer · Jun 26, 2022

Dan_P said:
I have pointed out to @taricha that his experiments show bottled bacteria can grow if you feed them a banquet, but the experiments do not bring us any closer to understanding what bottled bacteria is actually doing in an aquarium that aquarium bacteria are not doing already. It is a tough question but a fair one. It was his data on multiple products the pushed me further into the camp that thinks bottled bacteria (not nitrifying bacteria, that can be shown to actually accomplish something) might be snake oil. We are still on speaking terms He might have time to join in here and remind me of some important missing facts.

So, we still do not have data that shows, under aquarium conditions, what if anything, these bottled bacteria products are doing.

Heterotrophs work in a different way from autotroph, heterotrophic bacteria can assimilate nutrients in a similar way that macro algae can assimilate nutrients.
assimilation is a well studied process although is not very known to the hobby how everything works. This is why I keep mentioning that more hobby studies should be performed into heterotrophic bacteria.

Dan_P · Jun 26, 2022

sixty_reefer said:
Heterotrophs work in a different way from autotroph, heterotrophic bacteria can assimilate nutrients in a similar way that macro algae can assimilate nutrients.
assimilation is a well studied process although is not very known to the hobby how everything works. This is why I keep mentioning that more hobby studies should be performed into heterotrophic bacteria.

I can safely assume then that there are no scientific studies in aquaria that show bottled bacteria do anything differently than the bacteria that already live in the aquarium.

sixty_reefer · Jun 26, 2022

Dan_P said:
I can safely assume then that there are no scientific studies in aquaria that show bottled bacteria do anything differently than the bacteria that already live in the aquarium.

I agree with you, that’s why I shared Feldman study, the only reason bottled bacteria works will be mainly because the existing bacteria could be actively being exported or nutrient limited. Our low understanding on the subject is what thrives the business.
If we need to add it to a systems will only be depending on the abilities of the aquarists.
I started my system with terrestrial bacteria, never had the need to add anything else to my system although I can understand why some would use bottled bacteria, it’s easier to use instead of try and resolve they’re own organisms already present in a system.
There’s many aquarists that still think they’re filtration is made solely by nitrifying autotrophic bacteria, how can someone ask them to understand the basics of this conversation and others?

taricha · Jun 26, 2022

sixty_reefer said:
Taricha also shown bottled bacteria to do what it says,

That's not really close to my point of view at all. (and it wasn't my POV a couple of years ago when I was looking at Waste Away either).

I'm much closer to this...

Dan_P said:
So, we still do not have data that shows, under aquarium conditions, what if anything, these bottled bacteria products are doing.

I'd say it this way.
It is devilishly difficult to show (and I have tried occasionally) that the bacteria in bottled heterotroph bacterial products do anything faster or better than the heterotrophs already present in the water in an established tank. In fact, the bacteria in some products may not activate at all when added to established aquarium.

It is far easier to show that the media in some bacterial bottled products is chemically important, and does have a very noticeable effect. The Waste Away data you quoted is an example of that. WA contains a carbon source that when added to aquarium water is comparable in oxygen demand and in nutrient reduction to 1/6th the volume of vodka.

(different classes of bacteria - nitrifiers, maybe PNS are a different story.)

sixty_reefer · Jun 26, 2022

taricha said:
That's not really close to my point of view at all. (and it wasn't my POV a couple of years ago when I was looking at Waste Away either).

I'm much closer to this...

I'd say it this way.
It is devilishly difficult to show (and I have tried occasionally) that the bacteria in bottled heterotroph bacterial products do anything faster or better than the heterotrophs already present in the water in an established tank. In fact, the bacteria in some products may not activate at all when added to established aquarium.

It is far easier to show that the media in some bacterial bottled products is chemically important, and does have a very noticeable effect. The Waste Away data you quoted is an example of that. WA contains a carbon source that when added to aquarium water is comparable in oxygen demand and in nutrient reduction to 1/6th the volume of vodka.

(different classes of bacteria - nitrifiers, maybe PNS are a different story.)

We go back to limitations and the reason you observed a carbon content in the product tested, a user that would consider using this product would most likely have high nutrients in his/hers system, only dosing heterotrophic bacteria alone could be detrimental as the new bacteria would be also limited in C to be able to assimilate nutrients, most systems in reality just need the nutrients C to aid the existing bacteria as they may just be limited in the availability of organic carbon. The issue is how would you explain someone that just joined the hobby this? They may not need that bottle at all although what’s the point in trying to complicate things for them.
the conclusion is that it works and there is various ways to achieve the same goal in this hobby.

edit: you may have noticed that there was no N or P in the vial, this is for the bacteria that is in the vessel be limited in N and P until added to a aquarium that is abundant in N and P and limited in C.

Dan_P · Jun 26, 2022

taricha said:
That's not really close to my point of view at all. (and it wasn't my POV a couple of years ago when I was looking at Waste Away either).

I'm much closer to this...

I'd say it this way.
It is devilishly difficult to show (and I have tried occasionally) that the bacteria in bottled heterotroph bacterial products do anything faster or better than the heterotrophs already present in the water in an established tank. In fact, the bacteria in some products may not activate at all when added to established aquarium.

It is far easier to show that the media in some bacterial bottled products is chemically important, and does have a very noticeable effect. The Waste Away data you quoted is an example of that. WA contains a carbon source that when added to aquarium water is comparable in oxygen demand and in nutrient reduction to 1/6th the volume of vodka.

(different classes of bacteria - nitrifiers, maybe PNS are a different story.)

Thanks for chiming in. I knew that I retained only a general impression of your research results.

Quick question. Would a biofilm of the bottled bacteria inhibit algae growth? I know that is an off the wall question but you might have run across something on the topic.