Bacteria in a bottle, Myth or Fact

[MnFish1]

A lot of research has been done about ammonia tolerance of bacteria, AOB, NOB . Also concerning Archaea. A lot of such information is available.

It would be nice if you summarized what they said - and how it relates to this thread (when I click on the link I get I believe something in dutch and I have to sign in?)

 

[MnFish1]

Nice summary Dr Reef the pages have grown so fast I didn't realize you had worked at 8 ppm. awesome, just linked it to the pertinent thread. Mn felt strongly 8 ppm would kill the bac, and I didn't recall that already being tested here...perhaps he didn't either

@brandon429 - I am the one the directed you to these studies from the other thread lol. The problem in the other thread as I also posted there - is that his ammonia is not 8 - its far higher than 8. I didn't 'feel strongly' about anything - I was well aware as I mentioned here today - that Fritz worked at 8 PPM but was not as good as at 4 and 2 PPM - and that other bacteria seemed to be inhibited at 8 but worked at 4 and 2 ppm. I also mentioned that several companies recommend no more than 4 PPM ammonia (why would they do that??)

So to summarize - neither I nor many others completely understand what you're trying to get across - and again perhaps that's part of the problem?

 

[Dr. Reef]

what i can do is take a cycled tank and do 100% wc and dose to 1 ppm and wait for it to be oxidized and then do a 100% wc and dose 8ppm and see how long that takes for bacteria to overcome. then do 100% wc and dose maybe 16ppm and see if bacteria can bounce back in say 10-15 days etc.

 

[alton]

I ran across this thread a few weeks ago when my observation tank that holds three angels was having ammonia issues of .5. So I bought Instant ocean Bio-Spira, API instant start, Ordered Dr. Tims, and my LFS ordered Fritz Turbo 900. API knocked my ammonia down to .25. Instant Ocean went down to 0 after a large water change, but that required a $10 bottle and after two days we where back up to .5. Dr. Tims kept it at .25 using it every day at $32 a bottle adding the amount asked for 50 gallons. Finally my LFS received the Fritz Turbo 900 - 4 oz at $25 + tax. No water change and with ammonia at .5 I added a cap full. By the next day it was at 0. Two days later it was back to almost .25, so I continued to add it every other day to keep my ammonia at 0. For me when running a QT / Observation tank Fritz Turbo 900 is my bacteria of choice. I tried the Fritz 9 and it was like all the others close but no 0 ammonia. My three angels are in a 100 gallon rubbermaid tub filled halfway

 

[Lasse]

@Belgian Anthias My answer to Brandon was sarcastic - he always ask everyone else to do and document different thing. For me it is of no interest - because you should not ad so much ammonia in a start whatever - it is ridicules IMO. It is enough with the low amount of NH3/NH4 a single fish, feed sparsely, excrete during a start-up to establish a good nitrification rate

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Belgian Anthias]

Bacteria are generally very tolerant of high ammonium concentrations, much higher than healthy for fish and lower animals, even concentrations that exceed one molar / l of ammonium. It is there preferred nitrogen source. If ammonia is available NO2 will build up as growth of AOB and AOA will outcompete growth of NOB. NO2 is toxic for a lot of bacteria at high concentrations. High Ammonia (NH3) availability slows down, even may prevent, nitrafication of NO2, High availability is not the same as a high level in the water column.
When a lot of ammonia is produced constantly a lot op space is needed to reduce the ammonia but also to reduce the produced NO2 . This is done in the different layers of a biofilm and in a bio-filter. When using a biofilter ammonium rich water enters the filter and after the ammonia is removed NOB may oxidise NO2 to NO3. The availability of ammonia will not prevent NO2 to be removed. As the flow can be managed also the ammonium reduction rate can be managed if the filter is big enough.

If the level of TAN ( NH3+NH4) increases without NO2 increases a serious problem may be yours as something prevents de reduction of ammonium.
In LNS and or VLNS ammonium can be removed by adding modified F2 media without ammonia. Ammonia will be reduced fast by assimilation.
In high and or normal input systems it is just a matter of ammonium reduction capacity which can be managed easily by using a bio-filter.

In vodka dosed systems ammonia is mainly reduced by assimilation and the nitrification capacity may be very low or not existing . In such systems, based on heterotrophic ammonia reduction, ammonia build up may be caused by an interruption or prevention of the growth rate . Adding more bacteria will not solve a thing.


Adding bacteria in a bottle to an established aquarium seems to me a waist of money. One does not know what is added, exactly, the exact content is not provided, the addition of such products to a live support system is always on your own risk, a risk which is not worth taking as other solutions are available

 

[alex77619]

Wanted share a translation testing done in a lab on nitrifying bacteria I found in Taiwan.

Six brand nitrifying bacteria evaluation
Hello, everyone.

The problem of the efficiency of nitrifying bacteria has always been questioned and concerned about for new salt fish hobbyist . Some laboratory support has done the following tests for your reference.

It’s good to know what you are using.

Please also see the results of the experiment. It is for reference and discussion. It is not intended to sell the brand.

It must be emphasized that the detection method is only the same in the laboratory under the standard conditions, is it the same in the different complex cylinders?

(a) Nitrite test

Test method: Modified according to the nitrite spectrophotometer (NIEA W418.51C) announced by the Environmental Protection Agency .

Test Methods:
1. Take 6 ml of seawater (containing 5 ppm of Nitrite ) and add 0.1 ml (liquid) or 0.1 g (powder) of 6 commercially available products (see Figure 1).
2. Take 1ml of liquid to check if the content of Nitrite is consistent.
3. Set to shake at 27 °C for 20 hours.
4. Take 1 ml of the reacted liquid to detect the content of Nitrite .

Test Results:
1. The CW brand (that is, the C of Figure 1) can almost completely degrade Nitrite .
2. BI brand powder has a partial reaction when it is added, but there is no drop after 20 hours. The reason is not the effect of bacteria.
3. Other brands under this test condition are unable to effectively reduce the Nitrite .

Figure 1. Product

Figure 2. Before the reaction

Figure 3. After the reaction

(2) Total ammonia test

Test method: Modified according to the nitrite spectrophotometer (NIEA W448.51B) announced by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Test Methods:
1. Take 6 ml of seawater (containing 5 ppm of ammonia) and add 0.1 ml or 0.1 g of 6 commercially available products.
2. Take 1ml of liquid to check whether the ammonia content is consistent.
3. Set to shake at 27 °C for 20 hours.
4. Take 1 ml of the liquid after the reaction to detect the ammonia content.

The test results are roughly similar to the Nitrite results .


Fig. 5 before the reaction

Figure 6. After the reaction

(3) Nitrate test


Nitrate : 50ppm
Detection method: using API detection reagent
Test Methods:
1. Take 6 ml of seawater (containing 50 ppm of Nitrate ) and add 0.1 ml or 0.1 g of 6 commercially available products.
2. Take 1ml of liquid to check if the content of Nitrate is consistent.
3. Continuously shake at 44 °C for 44 hours.
4. Take 1 ml of the liquid after the reaction to detect the content of Nitrate .

Test Results:
1. CW brand can effectively degrade Nitrate under this condition, but its decrease is obvious on the second day. The action time is longer than the degradation of Nitrate and total ammonia!
2. The BI brand seems to interfere with the detection of the detection reagent at the beginning, and it is impossible to judge whether it will degrade, similar to the above experimental results.
3. Other brands under the test conditions, can not degrade Nitrate (there is almost no comparison with the control group, the same is true with spectrophotometer.)


Figure 7. Before the reaction (from left to right AP SE ST BI 50 CW control group)

Figure 8. After the reaction (1st day)

Figure IX. After the reaction (2nd day)

Again, these results are of course limited, and their reference value is judged by the viewer.


(4) Growth of bacteria

This part is for simple presentation to everyone.
I use the simplest picture to discriminate without using the usual petri dish or the way of counting the nine squares.
This stage of the experiment used two repetitions

test method
1. Take 6 ml of sterilized seawater (to avoid interference from bacteria) and add 0.1 ml or 0.1 g of 6 commercially available products.
2. Place at 27 °C for 48 hours. Photo record~


Test Results

1. Before the reaction, the SE and BI groups showed white turbidity and yellow turbidity when they entered the water.
The CW group has a little turbidity, and the rest are clear.
2. After the reaction, the CW group became obviously cloudy and cloudy .
It shows that the fungi may grow in a large amount, and the number of bacteria is confirmed by a microscope.
No other significant changes in the remaining groups


Figure 10. Before the reaction (from left to right AP / SE / SI / BI / 50 / CW)

Figure 11. After the reaction (from left to right AP / SE /SI /50 /BI /CW Sorry, BI and 50 are reversed at this time)

Feel free to do these tests on different product and see if there's any result.

 

[MnFish1]

Bacteria are generally very tolerant of high ammonium concentrations, much higher than healthy for fish and lower animals, even concentrations that exceed one molar / l of ammonium.( MullerTEnCo2006)
It is there preferred nitrogen source. If ammonia is available NO2 will build up as growth of AOB and AOA will outcompete growth of NOB. NO2 is toxic for a lot of bacteria at high concentrations. High Ammonia (NH3) availability slows down, even may prevent, nitrafication of NO2, High availability is not the same as a high level in the water column.
When a lot of ammonia is produced constantly a lot op space is needed to reduce the ammonia but also to reduce the produced NO2 . This is done in the different layers of a biofilm and in a bio-filter. When using a biofilter ammonium rich water enters the filter and after the ammonia is removed NOB may oxidise NO2 to NO3. The availability of ammonia will not prevent NO2 to be removed. As the flow can be managed also the ammonium reduction rate can be managed if the filter is big enough.

If the level of TAN ( NH3+NH4) increases without NO2 increases a serious problem may be yours as something prevents de reduction of ammonium.
In LNS and or VLNS ammonium can be removed by adding modified F2 media without ammonia. Ammonia will be reduced fast by assimilation.
In high and or normal input systems it is just a matter of ammonium reduction capacity which can be managed easily by using a bio-filter.

In vodka dosed systems ammonia is mainly reduced by assimilation and the nitrification capacity may be very low or not existing . In such systems, based on heterotrophic ammonia reduction, ammonia build up may be caused by an interruption or prevention of the growth rate . Adding more bacteria will not solve a thing.


Adding bacteria in a bottle to an established aquarium seems to me a waist of money. One does not know what is added, exactly, the exact content is not provided, the addition of such products to a live support system is always on your own risk, a risk which is not worth taking as other solutions are available

Except this has been disproven multiple times. First of all different strains of bacteria are sensitive more or less to ammonium. There is not 1 number. Secondly - bacteria in a bottle has been proven in various situations to be effective - so you're wrong on that as well.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

Except this has been disproven multiple times. First of all different strains of bacteria are sensitive more or less to ammonium. There is not 1 number. Secondly - bacteria in a bottle has been proven in various situations to be effective - so you're wrong on that as well.

How bacteria in a bottle have proven in various situations to be effective? Adding some F2 media and organic carbon to a biological active media would have a similar result. !
It is not me who did the research! So the researchers are wrong. Maybe you may contact them and explain why. It will help there research.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

It would be nice if you summarized what they said - and how it relates to this thread (when I click on the link I get I believe something in dutch and I have to sign in?)

The information provided is referenced. The link is to an article about ammonia in the aquarium and wherein the used reference ( MullerTEnCo2006) is used and where the used papers may be accessed for consultation. As for this forum, to get access to the Makazi Baharini wiki one has to register. There is a link on the access denied page to the registration page. The page exists also in English. You will receive an access code for the Makazi Baharini wiki after free registration. Free access is read only and for personal use only. To get full access to all articles one has to become a member.
The information provided is based on correct approved information. All articles published in the Makazi Baharini wiki must be properly referenced by using approved publications or and by other properly referenced articles. Most accessible references are in English.

 

[MnFish1]

How bacteria in a bottle have proven in various situations to be effective? Adding some F2 media and organic carbon to a biological active media would have a similar result. !
It is not me who did the research! So the researchers are wrong. Maybe you may contact them and explain why. It will help there research.

Well - actually the control tank in the experiments here did not have the same result. So there is that. Its easy to post things like the paragraph above - using vague terms like 'organic carbon' (how much), biological active media (what is this? How much?)

If you want to post 'the research' you're talking about - great - up til now you have not (except for a website that is not written in my language) - how would I contact them? Why is it you cant just summarize? All I know is what I have seen here - and my own personal experience.

It is clear that if you take a tank, put in a filter, sand and a food source - that eventually, bacteria of various types will grow. It may take a month - it may take longer depending on what you're doing.

Adding at least Fritz - + ammonia (no carbon source) resulted in decrease of ammonia from 8PPM to 0 within 48 hours.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

Well -

Adding at least Fritz - + ammonia (no carbon source) resulted in decrease of ammonia from 8PPM to 0 within 48 hours.

It is easy to post information including references to the information used. It should be done more.
To discus and compare results one must be able to compare the sources used and methods of research.

Official and approved research publications contain the information to contact the authors. By clicking on the references provided in the articles of Makazi Baharini one may consult the publication which mostly is written in English.

To reduce 1 gram NH4-N by growth +- 15 gram carbon hydrate is needed (1.18C6H12O6 + HCO) + all other buildingmaterials . +- 8 grams biomass is produced. ( produced biomass will be mineralized in a closed system, nothing is removed, yet. The nitrogen is still there, available to produce ammonia.)
If the carbon needed is not added where does it come from within 48 hours?
It must be a chemical ammonia binder you are using?
I wish you a lot of success with your experiments by forming correct conclusions.
As I said, in a bio-active environment, one just has to add building materials to reduce more ammonia, nothing else.
if I add some bacteria in a bottle, how I am going to prove those added bacteria are responsible for certain reactions, certainly if one does not know what is added exactly.

 

[MnFish1]

It is easy to post information including references to the information used. It should be done more.
To discus and compare results one must be able to compare the sources used and methods of research.

Official and approved research publications contain the information to contact the authors. By clicking on the references provided in the articles of Makazi Baharini one may consult the publication which mostly is written in English.

To reduce 1 gram NH4-N by growth +- 15 gram carbon hydrate is needed (1.18C6H12O6 + HCO) + all other buildingmaterials . +- 8 grams biomass is produced. ( produced biomass will be mineralized in a closed system, nothing is removed, yet. The nitrogen is still there, available to produce ammonia.)
If the carbon needed is not added where does it come from within 48 hours?
It must be a chemical ammonia binder you are using?
I wish you a lot of success with your experiments by forming correct conclusions.
As I said, in a bio-active environment, one just has to add building materials to reduce more ammonia, nothing else.
if I add some bacteria in a bottle, how I am going to prove those added bacteria are responsible for certain reactions, certainly if one does not know what is added exactly.

These answers have already been discussed in this thread. Perhaps you haven't read the results of the experiments. I'm sorry to say I think you're just trying to 'make an argument' where there is no argument - but I'll try to answer your questions:

1. Obligate autotrophic nitrifying bacteria use CO2 as their carbon source. Not carbon in the water. (though they CAN use carbon in the water if its present). https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02328114
2. If you read the experiments that @Dr. Reef has done - you'll see that NSW + ammonia (various concentrations) + bacteria (various brands) were tested in several experiments that also had a control tank. (NSW and ammonia with no bacteria). I dont know what a chemical ammonia binder is. There was no carbon added. (unless there was some carbon in the 'bacteria in a bottle')
3. The results showed that the bacteria in a bottle from Fritz (which is shipped/stored cold - and has a concrete expiration date) was able to reduce 8 PPM ammonia to 0 within 48 hours. The others showed varying results - with some showing no change even after 7 days. The control did not change after 7 days.
4. At lower concentrations of ammonia (<4 ppm) some of the products seemed to work better - reducing ammonia down to 0 within 2-4 days. The control tank had no change in ammonia within 7 days.
5. In the last experiment - at the recommendation of a couple of the manufacturers a carbon source was added - and in these tests nearly all of the ammonia was processed within 2-4 days.
6. To answer your last question - how do you prove that the added bacteria are responsible for certain reactions - Having a control tank with no bacteria added that stays the same - when the tank with added bacteria reduces the ammonia to zero over 1-2 days - seems to prove that the bottled bacteria is playing a role in decreasing ammonia. Exactly 'how' they are doing so I don't know. The fact that its done without any added external carbon suggests that they are not heterotrophs (though as I mentioned - its entirely possible that there is a carbon source in the Fritz bottle...

As to the articles - please post a direct link - Its not up to me to prove you're correct -its up to you to make your point. You merely sent a link -which was written in dutch that required registration. you find the articles that prove your points.

 

[MnFish1]

Wanted share a translation testing done in a lab on nitrifying bacteria I found in Taiwan.

Six brand nitrifying bacteria evaluation
Hello, everyone.

The problem of the efficiency of nitrifying bacteria has always been questioned and concerned about for new salt fish hobbyist . Some laboratory support has done the following tests for your reference.

It’s good to know what you are using.

Please also see the results of the experiment. It is for reference and discussion. It is not intended to sell the brand.

It must be emphasized that the detection method is only the same in the laboratory under the standard conditions, is it the same in the different complex cylinders?

(a) Nitrite test

Test method: Modified according to the nitrite spectrophotometer (NIEA W418.51C) announced by the Environmental Protection Agency .

Test Methods:
1. Take 6 ml of seawater (containing 5 ppm of Nitrite ) and add 0.1 ml (liquid) or 0.1 g (powder) of 6 commercially available products (see Figure 1).
2. Take 1ml of liquid to check if the content of Nitrite is consistent.
3. Set to shake at 27 °C for 20 hours.
4. Take 1 ml of the reacted liquid to detect the content of Nitrite .

Test Results:
1. The CW brand (that is, the C of Figure 1) can almost completely degrade Nitrite .
2. BI brand powder has a partial reaction when it is added, but there is no drop after 20 hours. The reason is not the effect of bacteria.
3. Other brands under this test condition are unable to effectively reduce the Nitrite .

Figure 1. Product

Figure 2. Before the reaction

Figure 3. After the reaction

(2) Total ammonia test

Test method: Modified according to the nitrite spectrophotometer (NIEA W448.51B) announced by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Test Methods:
1. Take 6 ml of seawater (containing 5 ppm of ammonia) and add 0.1 ml or 0.1 g of 6 commercially available products.
2. Take 1ml of liquid to check whether the ammonia content is consistent.
3. Set to shake at 27 °C for 20 hours.
4. Take 1 ml of the liquid after the reaction to detect the ammonia content.

The test results are roughly similar to the Nitrite results .


Fig. 5 before the reaction

Figure 6. After the reaction

(3) Nitrate test


Nitrate : 50ppm
Detection method: using API detection reagent
Test Methods:
1. Take 6 ml of seawater (containing 50 ppm of Nitrate ) and add 0.1 ml or 0.1 g of 6 commercially available products.
2. Take 1ml of liquid to check if the content of Nitrate is consistent.
3. Continuously shake at 44 °C for 44 hours.
4. Take 1 ml of the liquid after the reaction to detect the content of Nitrate .

Test Results:
1. CW brand can effectively degrade Nitrate under this condition, but its decrease is obvious on the second day. The action time is longer than the degradation of Nitrate and total ammonia!
2. The BI brand seems to interfere with the detection of the detection reagent at the beginning, and it is impossible to judge whether it will degrade, similar to the above experimental results.
3. Other brands under the test conditions, can not degrade Nitrate (there is almost no comparison with the control group, the same is true with spectrophotometer.)


Figure 7. Before the reaction (from left to right AP SE ST BI 50 CW control group)

Figure 8. After the reaction (1st day)

Figure IX. After the reaction (2nd day)

Again, these results are of course limited, and their reference value is judged by the viewer.


(4) Growth of bacteria

This part is for simple presentation to everyone.
I use the simplest picture to discriminate without using the usual petri dish or the way of counting the nine squares.
This stage of the experiment used two repetitions

test method
1. Take 6 ml of sterilized seawater (to avoid interference from bacteria) and add 0.1 ml or 0.1 g of 6 commercially available products.
2. Place at 27 °C for 48 hours. Photo record~


Test Results

1. Before the reaction, the SE and BI groups showed white turbidity and yellow turbidity when they entered the water.
The CW group has a little turbidity, and the rest are clear.
2. After the reaction, the CW group became obviously cloudy and cloudy .
It shows that the fungi may grow in a large amount, and the number of bacteria is confirmed by a microscope.
No other significant changes in the remaining groups


Figure 10. Before the reaction (from left to right AP / SE / SI / BI / 50 / CW)

Figure 11. After the reaction (from left to right AP / SE /SI /50 /BI /CW Sorry, BI and 50 are reversed at this time)

Feel free to do these tests on different product and see if there's any result.

Its interesting - thanks for posting. I dont exactly see what products are being tested - but I see a couple problems with these experiments. First - there is no substrate for the bacteria in those vials on which to grow. Though they are being 'shaken' - for nitrifying bacteria to grow - they need persistent oxygenated water - as they grow - the oxygen in a closed vial may be rapidly dropped. Lastly - most people would suggest that <48 hours is not long enough of an experiment. curious what is the 'cw brand'? Does it require refrigeration?

 

[alex77619]

Its interesting - thanks for posting. I dont exactly see what products are being tested - but I see a couple problems with these experiments. First - there is no substrate for the bacteria in those vials on which to grow. Though they are being 'shaken' - for nitrifying bacteria to grow - they need persistent oxygenated water - as they grow - the oxygen in a closed vial may be rapidly dropped. Lastly - most people would suggest that <48 hours is not long enough of an experiment. curious what is the 'cw brand'? Does it require refrigeration?

Its frozen bacteria, it is widely used fish farm and shrimp farm and even waste water treatment plant. It is a special strain of Shewanella bacteria. This product is sell in TW widely.

That 50 brand is the biodigest vial which an interesting thing is under 16S rRNA testing found nothing in it.

 

[MnFish1]

Its frozen bacteria, it is widely used fish farm and shrimp farm and even waste water treatment plant. It is a special strain of Shewanella bacteria. This product is sell in TW widely.

That 50 brand is the biodigest vial which an interesting thing is under 16S rRNA testing found nothing in it.

Did you look at the results from this thread (the experiments?). Shewanella (formerly a pseudomonas sp.) is a heterotroph - Curious - do they have a carbon source in their solution?

 

[alex77619]

Did you look at the results from this thread (the experiments?). Shewanella (formerly a pseudomonas sp.) is a heterotroph - Curious - do they have a carbon source in their solution?

no, it's a special heterotroph bacteria that can use organic like carbon source but also can directly use NH4 NO2 NO3. If your interested there's some publish paper about this strain of bacteria.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5095135/
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...turn-sewage-into-clean-water-and-electricity/

The company product http://www.nbl.tw/probiotics.html

 

[MnFish1]

no, it's a special heterotroph bacteria that can use organic like carbon source but also can directly use NH4 NO2 NO3. If your interested there's some publish paper about this strain of bacteria.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5095135/
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...turn-sewage-into-clean-water-and-electricity/

The company product http://www.nbl.tw/probiotics.html

Right - like I said its a heterotroph. Other species of pseudomonas also can denitrify.

 

[alex77619]

Right - like I said its a heterotroph. Other species of pseudomonas also can denitrify.

After all my research on papers only thing is that actually only Heterotroph bacteria can be reserved. Aerobic autotrophs, the true nitrifying bacteria, are non spore-forming bacteria that are free living and this is why I believe most of the working product are actually using heterotroph bacteria at your tank start and giving time for Aerobic autotrophs bacteria to grow and take over the job.
https://acrylictankmanufacturing.com/blog/shocking-truth-nitrifying-bacteria-products-colony/5/

 

[MnFish1]

After all my research on papers only thing is that actually only Heterotroph bacteria can be reserved. Aerobic autotrophs, the true nitrifying bacteria, are non spore-forming bacteria that are free living and this is why I believe most of the working product are actually using heterotroph bacteria at your tank start and giving time for Aerobic autotrophs bacteria to grow and take over the job.
https://acrylictankmanufacturing.com/blog/shocking-truth-nitrifying-bacteria-products-colony/5/

Did you look at the results on this thread - where ammonia was added to a 5 gallon tank - with no carbon source - and bacteria depending on the level of ammonia in the tank - were able to decrease it to 0 within a day or so? Many other products did not work - however unless there was an extraneous carbon source. Pseudomonas (shewanella) - I do not believe (but point me to it) use ammonia alone as a food source (with only Co2 as the carbon source). For example in a waste treatment plant - there is a lot of organic carbon.

The only product that seemed to work here was one that required refrigeration and a short expiration date. Which bacteria was 'in the bottle' I dont know. (This is Fritz Turbo 9000). According to the manufacturer - these are nitrifying bacteria (not heterotrophs).... unless I'm misremembering. Thanks for your expertise