Bacteria maintenance. What do you dose?

[NeutronMan]

By the way - it was you that asked the question below - I'm just surprised that you seem to be irritated because someone dared to answer your question? The explanation - is that lots of people have great tanks without adding bacteria - so its coincidence/luck/or something else

How about you check that attitude at the door? This thread is about what others are doing as far as bacteria dosing is concerned.

You didn’t answer my question in the slightest bit. You are clearly here to fight with anyone that feels there is a benefit.

Can someone please show me how to mute this person?

 

[AquaBiomics]

Aquabiomics is taking the first steps. Might want to read the articles on their website (more are sure to come) as their database of reef aquarium test results increases.

Relevant to this thread, tomorrow I will take a final set of samples from an experiment measuring effects of three products on replicated identical tanks, testing for the presence of the bottled strains after 5 min, 1 day, and 1 week. Should have the results in a month or so.

That's just one question, though... a more challenging one remains: measuring benefits for the tank beyond the microbial level. It'd be fun to think about what measurable benefits could be tested in a set of nano tanks in a reasonably short time frame.

 

[acabgd]

hadn't seen this one until now. checked out the website and they list only 4 of the genera included (and none to the level of species). are they more specific on the package about what species this contains?

It's from the Netherlands and not widely available or known in the US. There are great tanks in Europe that are using it, some of those are on R2R as well. I got the tip from a reefer friend and decided to try it out. Have been using it for two years and, again, my reef looks great but I don't know if it's due to BioGro 123 or not.

There's some more info on the packaging, here for reference.

 

[NeutronMan]

Relevant to this thread, tomorrow I will take a final set of samples from an experiment measuring effects of three products on replicated identical tanks, testing for the presence of the bottled strains after 5 min, 1 day, and 1 week. Should have the results in a month or so.

That's just one question, though... a more challenging one remains: measuring benefits for the tank beyond the microbial level. It'd be fun to think about what measurable benefits could be tested in a set of nano tanks in a reasonably short time frame.

From the tanks that you’ve seen, how common is vibrio?

 

[Paul B]

Do you have a specific bacteria product you dose for dirty sand, algae, to lower nutrients???

Yes, I go out at low tide to a tide pool and collect mud from under these snails and I throw it in my tank.
I dose food that I feed the fish, mostly clams with their associated juice that I buy live. :cool:

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Folks that see improvements in things like polyp extension or growth from adding bacteria may just be seeing a feeding response. If you view the bacteria as a food, that may be a more readily accepted benefit than hypothesized effects on something else.

 

[NeutronMan]

Folks that see improvements in things like polyp extension or growth from adding bacteria may just be seeing a feeding response. If you view the bacteria as a food, that may be a more readily accepted benefit than hypothesized effects on something else.

Food is my angle here...

 

[JP&JL]

I stumbled upon this thread today, not sure how dead it is but there is clearly a lot of evidence that the bacteria diversity on live rock is more than enough to sustain phenomenal reef tanks. There are decades worth of older reefers who can show off pictures of their flourishing tanks without dosing bacteria and just using live rock. I'd say if you have an established system why not focus on (as Randy said) the thriving bacteria you already have until someone can prove that a bottled miracle product's juice is worth the squeeze. On that note here is a link for a great article to read (tracking this is a little rabbit hole from the threads intent) from advanced aquarist for the 10% of people that won't fall asleep in the first 5 minutes reading it :)

https://www.advancedaquarist.com/2011/3/aafeature
Lastly, obviously if you're not using live rock to start a tank you have to add something and there are plenty of tanks out there that are amazing with no live rock. I was just referring to regular bacteria dosing for an established system.

 

[trout]

I dose KZ ZEObak.

 

[Kenneth Wingerter]

I stumbled upon this thread today, not sure how dead it is but there is clearly a lot of evidence that the bacteria diversity on live rock is more than enough to sustain phenomenal reef tanks. There are decades worth of older reefers who can show off pictures of their flourishing tanks without dosing bacteria and just using live rock. I'd say if you have an established system why not focus on (as Randy said) the thriving bacteria you already have until someone can prove that a bottled miracle product's juice is worth the squeeze. On that note here is a link for a great article to read (tracking this is a little rabbit hole from the threads intent) from advanced aquarist for the 10% of people that won't fall asleep in the first 5 minutes reading it :)

https://www.advancedaquarist.com/2011/3/aafeature
Lastly, obviously if you're not using live rock to start a tank you have to add something and there are plenty of tanks out there that are amazing with no live rock. I was just referring to regular bacteria dosing for an established system.

largely depends on what species are already present in your tank. every tank is different with regards to livestock, filtration, etc. and the same goes for its microbial community (on the rock as well as the sand, biofilter, etc.). this can change over time; a species that eventually flourishes in one system might die off completely in another. this goes for both good and bad types. in some cases, adding certain species of microbes can definitely improve certain aspects of a system.

a lot of hobbyists only consider nitrification, maybe denitrification. but some bacteria are used to digest sludge, others are used as probiotics, others are used as food, and so on. i think a large part of the skepticism in the hobby over bottled products comes (and rightly so, in my opinion) from the fact that so many manufacturers refuse to disclose critical info such as the species of bacteria they contain. maybe if they did so, we could more specifically target particular issues with specific species and even specific strains of microbes.

it's exciting (to me, anyway) that folks like aquabiomics are analyzing the microbial consortia of the phenomenal tanks, comparing them to those of the not-so-phenomenal tanks, and giving us more insight as to what we should actually be aiming for. just my 2¢...

 

[YankeeTankee]

Calcium acetate provides both Ca and carbon dosing

 

[Russell Casey]

I appreciate your thoughtful conclusion. So often I hear people say "I added this bottle of bacteria and it worked well for me". Really? In comparison to what? If there isnt a control tank right next to it, identical in every way except the dose, how could a person conclude it had "worked"?

I'll go ahead and say it: I suspect most of these bottled products are effectively placebos, and have seen no evidence that they produce any lasting effects in aquariums. I personally find it a little surprising so many are adding bottles of unknown ingredients without evidence these products do anything at all, let alone have the stated effect.

I also believe that some people when dosing bacteria will cut back on feeding etc., so is it the bacteria or is it something else. The only thing that made a difference that I would put $20,000 on to work for you in a bet is dosing peroxide in my 13.5 gallon Evo. The water within days of starting the oxydator it is crystal clear. Is it making a difference in nutrients not at all, but the water is clearer.

 

[JP&JL]

largely depends on what species are already present in your tank. every tank is different with regards to livestock, filtration, etc. and the same goes for its microbial community (on the rock as well as the sand, biofilter, etc.). this can change over time; a species that eventually flourishes in one system might die off completely in another. this goes for both good and bad types. in some cases, adding certain species of microbes can definitely improve certain aspects of a system.

a lot of hobbyists only consider nitrification, maybe denitrification. but some bacteria are used to digest sludge, others are used as probiotics, others are used as food, and so on. i think a large part of the skepticism in the hobby over bottled products comes (and rightly so, in my opinion) from the fact that so many manufacturers refuse to disclose critical info such as the species of bacteria they contain. maybe if they did so, we could more specifically target particular issues with specific species and even specific strains of microbes.

it's exciting (to me, anyway) that folks like aquabiomics are analyzing the microbial consortia of the phenomenal tanks, comparing them to those of the not-so-phenomenal tanks, and giving us more insight as to what we should actually be aiming for. just my 2¢...

That would actually be really cool to see a Lehman's breakdown of what they found in those different tanks! I'm nothing more than a weekend armchair scientist but I'm sure it would still be pretty fascinating results. Appreciate the response

 

[Scott Campbell]

I stumbled upon this thread today, not sure how dead it is but there is clearly a lot of evidence that the bacteria diversity on live rock is more than enough to sustain phenomenal reef tanks. There are decades worth of older reefers who can show off pictures of their flourishing tanks without dosing bacteria and just using live rock. I'd say if you have an established system why not focus on (as Randy said) the thriving bacteria you already have until someone can prove that a bottled miracle product's juice is worth the squeeze. On that note here is a link for a great article to read (tracking this is a little rabbit hole from the threads intent) from advanced aquarist for the 10% of people that won't fall asleep in the first 5 minutes reading it :)

https://www.advancedaquarist.com/2011/3/aafeature
Lastly, obviously if you're not using live rock to start a tank you have to add something and there are plenty of tanks out there that are amazing with no live rock. I was just referring to regular bacteria dosing for an established system.

This is actually a very interesting article. Difficult to read but a lot of helpful information.

What stood out for me was the claim that we add a *lot* more bacteria to our tanks than we take out when we do water changes. That seems initially very counter-intuitive but it makes a lot of sense. Bacteria apparently reproduce like crazy in our saltwater mixing systems (no competition, no predation and more than sufficient nutrients from residue on the sides of buckets, from our hands, from the air, etc.) while bacterial numbers in our tanks are suppressed from intense predation by corals, sponges, filter feeders and such. So a water change brings a large net influx of bacteria into our tanks.

Which might explain in a very simple and straightforward manner why ORP numbers drop for a few days after a water change. It is similar to a drop in ORP after a heavy feeding. As the influx of new bacteria is gradually consumed the ORP numbers climb back to equilibrium.

And why coral polyps open up after a water change. Not because of a response to cleaner water but because we are putting a lot of food into the tank. It is a feeding frenzy effect.

Crazy to think we are juicing our tanks with bacteria every time we change water. Why bother buying bacteria in a bottle if we add enormous amounts of bacteria with every water change?

 

[Nano sapiens]

https://www.advancedaquarist.com/2011/3/aafeature

Partial because of this Ken Feldman article I started using Red Sea salt a few years ago. Since it's base is evaporated sea salt, it contains viable bacteria from the ocean. This may in part (at least) explain why my nearly 12 year old small system has higher than average bacterial diversity (most older systems show decreased bacterial diversity) per an Aquabiomics test report. It also showed that the system has a very high relative concentration of Pelagiobacteria which are known to inhabit low nutrient open oceanic waters.

A water change 2x/wk (10% total/wk) undoubtedly adds a nice boost of bacteria to the aquarium and provides a food source for the organisms. I surmise that this is in large part what allows me to run a stable oligotrophic system with undetectable PO4 and low NO3 and still have good coral growth and coloration.

 

[Scott Campbell]

Partial because of this Ken Feldman article I started using Red Sea salt a few years ago. Since it's base is evaporated sea salt, it contains viable bacteria from the ocean. This may in part (at least) explain why my nearly 12 year old small system has higher than average bacterial diversity (most older systems show decreased bacterial diversity) per an Aquabiomics test report. It also showed that the system has a very high relative concentration of Pelagiobacteria which are known to inhabit low nutrient open oceanic waters.

A water change 2x/wk (10% total/wk) undoubtedly adds a nice boost of bacteria to the aquarium and provides a food source for the organisms. I surmise that this is in large part what allows me to run a stable oligotrophic system with undetectable PO4 and low NO3 and still have good coral growth and coloration.

Makes me wonder what particular bacteria I am adding to my tank with water changes. Maybe it doesn't matter but the Red Sea approach suddenly sounds quite good.

And, for me, this makes water changes a lot more valuable.

 

[Nano sapiens]

Makes me wonder what particular bacteria I am adding to my tank with water changes. Maybe it doesn't matter but the Red Sea approach suddenly sounds quite good.

And, for me, this makes water changes a lot more valuable.

Good question and one I've asked myself, too. Doing an Aquabiomics bacterial test on the water change water itself might be interesting...

 

[mcgullen]

Relevant to this thread, tomorrow I will take a final set of samples from an experiment measuring effects of three products on replicated identical tanks, testing for the presence of the bottled strains after 5 min, 1 day, and 1 week. Should have the results in a month or so.

That's just one question, though... a more challenging one remains: measuring benefits for the tank beyond the microbial level. It'd be fun to think about what measurable benefits could be tested in a set of nano tanks in a reasonably short time frame.

Hi. I am wondering if there were results from Aquabiomics re: bottled bacteria’s effects on biodiversity score.

My recent efforts to find measurable benefits in nano tanks from dosing Prodibio BioDigest has failed. I have exhausted reasonable measures and still could not find any tangible benefits clearly attributable to BioDigest dosing.

https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/p...nd-does-not-help-with-waste-reduction.983427/

 

[Townes_Van_Camp]

Live rock systems will never need it and will never skew out of balance with normal export habits and tank maintenance. Bottle bac sellers are riding a huge feel good wave for a long time, I'm determined not to make their vette payments for them

when to use bottle bac: to make a dry rock cycle speed up or to try and battle dinos in a dry rock system.

I tried bottled bacteria to beat dinos in a 14g. Didn't work. I put 1.5 cups of TBS wild live sand directly on the dino effected area and I haven't seen any since 5 days after. It's been well over a month now.

 

[BrianReefer]

I tried bottled bacteria to beat dinos in a 14g. Didn't work. I put 1.5 cups of TBS wild live sand directly on the dino effected area and I haven't seen any since 5 days after. It's been well over a month now.

…but you’re playing with potential SCTLD fire with that approach too…!