Bacteria in bottle, busting myth, Seneye style.

[brandon429]

Well said

 

[Tobin VP]

I am forced to find out to what is really in the bottle. So we will send samples for a bacterial count and other content to find out what it is all about!
Based on the results we then can form an idea of how such a product works exactly.

@Belgian Anthias
Did you ever have any neutral/independent analysis conducted on any bottled bacterias?


In general:

The obvious original intent of the experiments and these threads was to test the claim by bottled bacteria companies of increased tank cycle times. "Cycle" time in this context being defined as the time to get NH3 and NO2 to go to "zero". This clearly was demonstrated in the various experiments that Dr. Reef performed.

At the same time the "how" this works is of interest too. Many contributors hypothesize that some bottles are autotrophs (at least in part) and that other bottles must be heterotrophs that are only biding time with safe levels of NH3 and NO2 such that natural processes can work. Yet others believe that existing theory and research completely preclude autotrophs from being transported to consumers in any numbers at all. I am not a microbiologist and have no opinions on this last claim ... I have only been researching and trying to understand it all. It does seem that there is much not understood yet within these areas.

Of course companies do not want to disclose trade secrets surrounding their products so it can be difficult to get this information directly. It is now several years later since much of this debate occurred in these threads. Isn't it reasonably easy today to have contents of bottles tested in this context? Is anyone aware if this has been done? I have a guess on what the results are going to be but it's hard to argue with hard data and tests - and it seems like these have only become easier and easier to do.

One of my additional thoughts/questions on this topic is around defining what "a cycle" truly is. We discuss it mainly in terms of raising NH3 to some level and then getting NH3 (as well as NO2) to go to "zero". We rely on these measures because they are what are reasonably accessible to us within our hobby and they allow us to keep our inhabitants safe and signal that we can start/continue stocking - but what of the longer term questions? It seems like another (and possibly better) definition of "cycle" would be when the right combination/diversity/balance of nitrifying bacterias have been achieved. It doesn't seem likely that the same balance of nitrifies will always be arrived at in the end. Another way of thinking about it is that there are likely many equilibria (long term combinations of the bacteria) that are attainable and this is only with respect to the nitrifies ... with no mention yet of all of the other microbes and how they are then competed against and impacted going forward.

Is it possible that all cycles are not created equal? Do I arrive at the same biodiversity and robustness with a fast cycle as I would with a much slower and natural Lasse cycle for example? I would guess not. Factors such as: the original starting population ratios of bacteria (either on live rock or from bottles), when they are introduced, the rates they competed at, environmental pressures that were present along the way, the types of livestock, QT vs no QT livestock, etc, etc - would likely yield different resulting local (in time) as well as global equilibria. It seems that companies like AquaBiomics is starting to delve into this fascinating area with their data collection and analysis. I have been shocked thus far in how different supposedly "mature" aquariums can look in this regard yet appear visually healthy nonetheless. But is one teetering on the precipice of disaster if the right disturbance comes along ... while the other is ready to defend against it? And while they have a couple of measures for "diversity" and "balance" it seems that we are at the very beginning of understanding robustness in this area.

So it leaves me wondering ... as long as NH3 and NO2 go to zero ... are those cycles really the same? We don't measure the resulting nitrifiers directly. Sometimes we get there fast and sometimes slow - both along different paths and competitive pressures. Are all "cycles" really created equal in terms of the long run biodiversity and robustness that is then achieved later in my aquarium?

 

[MnFish1]

@Belgian Anthias
Did you ever have any neutral/independent analysis conducted on any bottled bacterias?


In general:

The obvious original intent of the experiments and these threads was to test the claim by bottled bacteria companies of increased tank cycle times. "Cycle" time in this context being defined as the time to get NH3 and NO2 to go to "zero". This clearly was demonstrated in the various experiments that Dr. Reef performed.

At the same time the "how" this works is of interest too. Many contributors hypothesize that some bottles are autotrophs (at least in part) and that other bottles must be heterotrophs that are only biding time with safe levels of NH3 and NO2 such that natural processes can work. Yet others believe that existing theory and research completely preclude autotrophs from being transported to consumers in any numbers at all. I am not a microbiologist and have no opinions on this last claim ... I have only been researching and trying to understand it all. It does seem that there is much not understood yet within these areas.

Of course companies do not want to disclose trade secrets surrounding their products so it can be difficult to get this information directly. It is now several years later since much of this debate occurred in these threads. Isn't it reasonably easy today to have contents of bottles tested in this context? Is anyone aware if this has been done? I have a guess on what the results are going to be but it's hard to argue with hard data and tests - and it seems like these have only become easier and easier to do.

One of my additional thoughts/questions on this topic is around defining what "a cycle" truly is. We discuss it mainly in terms of raising NH3 to some level and then getting NH3 (as well as NO2) to go to "zero". We rely on these measures because they are what are reasonably accessible to us within our hobby and they allow us to keep our inhabitants safe and signal that we can start/continue stocking - but what of the longer term questions? It seems like another (and possibly better) definition of "cycle" would be when the right combination/diversity/balance of nitrifying bacterias have been achieved. It doesn't seem likely that the same balance of nitrifies will always be arrived at in the end. Another way of thinking about it is that there are likely many equilibria (long term combinations of the bacteria) that are attainable and this is only with respect to the nitrifies ... with no mention yet of all of the other microbes and how they are then competed against and impacted going forward.

Is it possible that all cycles are not created equal? Do I arrive at the same biodiversity and robustness with a fast cycle as I would with a much slower and natural Lasse cycle for example? I would guess not. Factors such as: the original starting population ratios of bacteria (either on live rock or from bottles), when they are introduced, the rates they competed at, environmental pressures that were present along the way, the types of livestock, QT vs no QT livestock, etc, etc - would likely yield different resulting local (in time) as well as global equilibria. It seems that companies like AquaBiomics is starting to delve into this fascinating area with their data collection and analysis. I have been shocked thus far in how different supposedly "mature" aquariums can look in this regard yet appear visually healthy nonetheless. But is one teetering on the precipice of disaster if the right disturbance comes along ... while the other is ready to defend against it? And while they have a couple of measures for "diversity" and "balance" it seems that we are at the very beginning of understanding robustness in this area.

So it leaves me wondering ... as long as NH3 and NO2 go to zero ... are those cycles really the same? We don't measure the resulting nitrifiers directly. Sometimes we get there fast and sometimes slow - both along different paths and competitive pressures. Are all "cycles" really created equal in terms of the long run biodiversity and robustness that is then achieved later in my aquarium?

Agree - there is no question that bottled bacteria speeds up a cycle - even to the point that fish, etc can be added on Day 1. For example if you're doing a QT tank - with say a sponge filter - they can be quite helpful. Others will make the point that either way - with time a cycle will occur - so what's the point - still others say that it's little more than water in the containers.

The experiments done show I think fairly conclusively, that bottled bacteria do markedly speed up a cycle, that some contain obligate autotrophs and some likely contain heterotrophs - and - in the end - its all the same result.

 

[brandon429]

excellent summary / what a neat thread to watch evolve over time.