Ghost feeding is a myth perpetuated only in web forums

[brandon429]

Discuss... There isn't a time you have to ghost feed to prevent malfunction of a filter if you are keeping something constantly wet

This thread is not about ghost feeding to start a cycle, its about what we think we must do after a cycle, to prevent loss of bacteria, how that ties into overall tank care...we don't have to do anything support-wise when making new tanks fallow to prevent fish diseases or during fish qt. To feed ones corals during a fallow period also is wise...this thread doesn't apply to that condition. its about what bacteria need from us and how that ties into many actions we take or don't take on these aquaria




before we name the myriad ways an established aquarium filter might die\starve without our allowances try linking a source not from any company or associate that sells bottle bac, and not an aquarium forum post--> that shows how hard it is to find works that say wet bacterial communities die without our help, it may be impossible to find the links, pages will show.

the goal of relevant links will be to show how a constantly-hydrated surface self-sterilizes upon feed withholding by aquarists (no more flake feed or dead shrimp means all my bacteria die off)

The missed detail I claim is surface area, not feed maintenance.

If we had hardly any surface area active, say a bare glass tank only, then average bac population changes via feed changes might matter

but you and I are dealing with massive surface area overages per the bioloads we keep, and that sets the stage for you not having to assist mother nature after tank is verified cycled, and able to oxidize a few ppm ammonia within 24 hours

once hydrated, the nitrifiers and related bacteria modulate overall populations relative to feed constants but they never go back to sterile, and since there is massive surface area, whats left is always enough, always, as long as we're talking post cycle events. food is always getting in, enough to sustain and grow bacteria even without the primary bioload we discuss in later detail.

Mechanisms were already in place to control the number of average surface bacteria anyway even during feed, they weren't infinitely stacking on one another...removal of some bioload doesn't make them go to single layer, or dead, either. the mechanisms that control bac populations are modulated by the water, not the feed we think we have to provide. this detail means we can trust what bacteria do if we aren't medicating, and from that a host of tank care options comes about that was allowed in earlier years of reefkeeping.

The variation in feed withholding is statistically insignificant, yet on web forums it's the rule. Find the links



Ghost feeding is a myth let's press on that claim.

 

[brandon429]

People who wish surfaces were sterilized by not adding fish food:

Anyone in a hospital
Microbiologists who run slaughter houses
Contamination cleanup specialists
Food science personnel
Et al

 

[Tahoe61]

Brandon I do not believe I have seen anyone claim "People who wish surfaces were sterilized by not adding fish food".

Please site your resources or references that theorize that bacteria populations do not wax and wane based on available organics?

 

[reeferfoxx]

We ghost feed to keep the nitrogen cycle going? Or that is the myth?

 

[Sm51498]

Have you heard of Thomas Malthus? Populations naturally increase and decrease on the basis of available food. I don't think the worry is that a biofilter will cease to exist, just that the population of bacteria will dwindle such that adding bioload will cause an ammonia spike. A little flake food is cheap insurance.

 

[brandon429]

My reference is working in one of the industries above. You don't have to ghost feed to keep the nitrogen cycle going reeferfox that's right. Once established, bac have their own support mechanisms. We control timing and flux of populations but not critical flux, the ability to nitrify continues because we're doing work in filthy rooms and the alt feed support is plenty. You don't even have to add bottle bac source nor ammonia, or rotting shrimp, to cycle all dry setups it will just take months off natural contaminations.

The myth is that the bac require our ongoing help to function, in high surface area environments.

Tahoe I mentioned population flux in first post, its cross-set against the incredibly high surface area we all keep and how the baseline for those areas is still more than we need.

Flux is agreed, I claim it won't generate ammonia and become measurable loss of bacteria upon test bioload reintroduction

Some threads show this test just fine in fallow runs, no ghost feeding with fish reintroduction later

Live rock is a very long term feed pump itself, massive organic stores add to non factored support mechanisms so far

 

[reeferfoxx]

My reference is working in one of the industries above. You don't have to ghost feed to keep the nitrogen cycle going reeferfox that's right. Once established, bac have their own support mechanisms. We control timing and flux of populations but not critical flux, the ability to nitrify continues because we're doing work in filthy rooms and the alt feed support is plenty. You don't even have to add bottle bac source nor ammonia, or rotting shrimp, to cycle all dry setups it will just take months off natural contaminations.

The myth is that the bac require our ongoing help to function, in high surface area environments.

Tahoe I mentioned population flux in first post, its cross-set against the incredibly high surface area we all keep and how the baseline for those areas is still more than we need.

Since we are breaking down bacteria here; How does nitrifying bacteria provide it's own food?

 

[Sm51498]

Tahoe I mentioned population flux in first post, its cross-set against the incredibly high surface area we all keep and how the baseline for those areas is still more than we need.

Can you substantiate this claim? How much bacteria is required to denitrify a typical aquarium's bioload? How much bacteria is in this baseline quantity?

Here is the crux from a risk management standpoint, if you feed the system the cost is a little flake food, if you do not feed the system and that baseline quantity is enough you save a couple of bucks on flake over the course of a year. If you are wrong you kill fish, all of which cost more than a tub of flake food. So without strong scientific evidence to the contrary, I am going to continue to feed a biofilter.

 

[brandon429]

Try to find that on the web reeferfox, I listed two ways so far, there's many. Post em after search

 

[brandon429]

My claim is substantiated in the large threads we run regarding full tank cleanings, skip cycles, and all manner of bac control

By sending null hunters on a link search it reinforces how we get those results on the big threads. No links needed by us to keep churning out tanks knowing that bac self support when kept wet... if I don't post links, don't let that hold y'all back

I've setup tanks after long fallow periods of no ghost feeding using live rock, it's good discussion material to see how live rock is actually the feed, when we withhold

 

[reeferfoxx]

Try to find that on the web reeferfox, I listed two ways so far, there's many. Post em after search

You were saying a dirty room provides food? What if the environment is sterile? What if the tank lost all of it's micro fauna, snails, worms, etc. All those things died and the tank is in a sterile environment. Provided a small amount of bacteria remains. What would it feed off of? How would the nitrogen cycle stay alive without a given food source?

 

[saltyhog]

Hasn't been my experience. I let a cycled QT sit empty for 10 weeks and it was unable to process an ammonia dose of 1 over 4 days (not the 24 hours we aim for).

While bacterial populations don't die out without feeding I firmly believe they can fall to inadequate levels in certain situations. To say that it doesn't happen as a blanket statement seems a bit reckless and a little provocative.

 

[Aaron Stone]

Last time I checked analogy was not acceptable as scientific evidence, nor was citing ones self.

Can you substantiate this claim? How much bacteria is required to denitrify a typical aquarium's bioload? How much bacteria is in this baseline quantity?

Here is the crux from a risk management standpoint, if you feed the system the cost is a little flake food, if you do not feed the system and that baseline quantity is enough you save a couple of bucks on flake over the course of a year. If you are wrong you kill fish, all of which cost more than a tub of flake food. So without strong scientific evidence to the contrary, I am going to continue to feed a biofilter.

Sm51498 hit the Game Theory nail on the head

 

[Sm51498]

My claim is substantiated in the large threads we run regarding full tank cleanings, skip cycles, and all manner of bac control

By sending null hunters on a link search it reinforces how we get those results on the big threads. No links needed by us to keep churning out tanks knowing that bac self support when kept wet... if I don't post links, don't let that hold y'all back

So no actual data? I can establish very easily bacteria need food to live. I can establish bacteria increase and decrease in number in proportion to the food available. This is very basic biology in fact This supports my position that feeding a biofilter ensures a sufficient bacterial population. The onus is on you to prove that it is not necessary to do so.

 

[brandon429]

wanted to show that its not easy to find links that say ghost feeding is required, there are none posted so far. I was -asking- for links, not offering them.



again don't let my non linking stop a counterclaim link. If you aren't sold by the claim, and aren't having to run any big access threads whats the harm?-nothing is on the line for your claim that feeding is required and no other sources of support exist minus our fish feed. we will begin losing tanks massively if our bac calcs are off.

http://reef2reef.com/threads/new-ta...d-cocktail-shrimp-live-rock-no-shrimp.214618/


and

http://reef2reef.com/threads/the-of...ead-aka-one-against-many.230281/#post-2681445

all that work and tank access is set around bacteria doing what they do, without our help, once established. its about not redundantly cycling an already-cycled tank...ghost feeding is redundantly organic bombing a tank for no reason just like using rotten shrimp to cycle live rock is possible, but not accurate.

the reason we don't need to factor bacteria in any way once hydrated across reefing is for the reasons mentioned above...this extends to include totally unassisted cycling of active surface area, fallow periods, tank cleaning, air exposure on and on.

The ghost feeding myth is part of the old set of claims that doing full water changes removes critical measurable bacteria, UV, etc. its part of the old set that aquarists control the critical bac levels by what they offer, or not offer, and from that line of thinking many aspects of the hobby were built. the new ways of keeping sandbeds cleaned vs stored full of nitrate came about due to being freer with bacteria than once told.

We haven't acknowledged one bit the extra ways bacteria gain and access feed anyway during hydration, that's literally been skipped over. part of the link hunting to state ghost feeding is required will uncover those alt pathways, and none are posted so far

 

[Aaron Stone]

My claim is substantiated in the large threads we run regarding full tank cleanings, skip cycles, and all manner of bac control

I am sorry, but you cant title your post "Ghost feeding is a myth perpetuated only in web forums", essentially stating that web forums are a poor source of evidentiary data and then turn around and claim those same forums as evidence. That's absurd.

 

[brandon429]

isn't it absurd though to both not have any application links, and no formal ones too? seems like armchair microbiology, safe zone claims.

at least we show some rare tank access work above where bac was factored correctly... we didn't need the formal links to get those results, $$ of animals preserved after deep tank dives

formal studies don't mean as much to me as it will be for someone to let go of unsubstantiated bac claims.

I guess someone who has a thread showing ghost feeding was required can post that too.

just like bacteria aren't killed off when live rock is present if we withhold feed, we are able to deep clean and not lose bac, or move tanks and not lose bac etc.

*it would be neat to see how all that above is possible, just not skipping a ghost feed is possible, that's what everyone is alluding to so far.


Given conventional thinking untested, our threads above would definitely be re adding bacteria back to live rock any time its moved tank to tank. we spent time showing how that was a dated notion, just like the requirement to ghost feed.

 

[Tahoe61]

wanted to show that its not easy to find links that say ghost feeding is required, there are none posted so far. I was -asking- for links, not offering them.



again don't let my non linking stop a counterclaim link. If you aren't sold by the claim, and aren't having to run any big access threads whats the harm?-nothing is on the line for your claim that feeding is required and no other sources of support exist minus our fish feed. we will begin losing tanks massively if our bac calcs are off.

the reason we don't need to factor bacteria in any way once hydrated across reefing is for the reasons mentioned above...this extends to include totally unassisted cycling of active surface area, fallow periods, tank cleaning, air exposure on and on.

The ghost feeding myth is part of the old set of claims that doing full water changes removes critical measurable bacteria, UV, etc. its part of the old set that aquarists control the critical bac levels by what they offer, or not offer, and from that line of thinking many aspects of the hobby were built. the new ways of keeping sandbeds cleaned vs stored full of nitrate came about due to being freer with bacteria than once told.

We haven't acknowledge one bit the extra ways bacteria gain and access feed anyway during hydration, that's literally been skipped over. part of the link hunting to state ghost feeding is required will uncover those alt pathways

Brandon, you and I went round and round many years ago on NR about soft cycles, and you were right.

But the onus is on you with this one, that is basic logic.

"wanted to show that its not easy to find links that say ghost feeding is required, there are none posted so far. I was -asking- for links, not offering them." This line is a tad insulting to the reader imo. I came to the thread looking for valid information and not to defend the ghost feeding claim and instead this seems like a bait and switch.

 

[Aaron Stone]

No, I am with Sm51498 on this. I would say that with a lack of any actual evidence, either way, the only thing that makes logical sense would to spend a measly $2.00 on a can of cheap flake that will last a year. If your going to quibble over $2.00 your in the wrong hobby.

 

[brandon429]

I had nothing to prove though, the ghost feeders did. the writing is def meant to challenge a strongly held stance... just like skipping a cycle is for many.

can anyone at least post a forum link like I did above where ghost feeding was required, and the alt outcome would have been measured ammonia since we didn't feed during X timeframe in the presence of live rock, organic stores, and alt feed sources? clearly we aren't getting any studies, so we can at least read the forum ones.

anything ive said so far has been tested in others tanks not just mine, and we collected those outcomes.

the way I see this:

ghost feeding is required since you didn't post any formal links sayings its not

I posted links saying its not for sure, but they didn't come from google scholar. nobody on google scholar is doing tank moves and rip cleanings or id consult it more often


there are fallow threads to consult where keepers didn't ghost feed, so they weren't pumping organics into their tank for a 72 day run, they were on the right track. the reintroduction of fish went without a hitch, they knew the active surface area was plenty ready after a few mos of ich starving.

we also try to turn out live rock transporters who do not try to recycle the live rocks after they move place to place, or add bacteria back to them...to me this is streamlining the real nature of bacteria in our tanks and ghost feeding is archaic pending any type of link at all- forum or not.


live rocks kept in good water for mos and mos will still pass a digestion test after feeding was withheld, to me that's brazen proof that the feeding wasn't required.

**the exact same firmness of claims are made in threads where we must not rinse sandbeds due to loss of critical bac