Ghost feeding is a myth perpetuated only in web forums

[reeferfoxx]

heterotrophic bacteria

Heterotrophic bacteria wouldn't survive in 100% purified ro/di water. Still needs a carbon source because everything eats.

I for one don't use tap water so nitrifiers wouldn't be present?

 

[stunreefer]

I'm not a fan of the title of this thread, for it's bound to lead to misinformation being spread. Perhaps, "Is ghost feeding necessary?" would have been a better choice.

I say this since the benefits of ghost feeding is not a myth. But is it necessary? No. Will it speed up the reproduction of beneficial bacteria? Yes.

In the past (and present) ghost feeding has been used to increase beneficial bacteria population prior to adding to the bioload. While you don't have to, it certainly lessens the chances of bacteria being overloaded by animal waste.

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

I agree. There is not a time that you have to. But it can be very beneficial for reasoning mentioned above (overloading bacteria population which could lead to animals ailing).

Here's an article from 2011 regarding bacteria in marine aquaria. Some excerpts:

In addition to a carbon source, bacteria require nitrogen and phosphorus compounds in significant quantities along with trace amounts of many other elements, perhaps the most critical of which is iron. Deficiencies of any of these macro- or micronutrients can, in principle, serve as a limiter of growth (details below)...

Bacterial growth rates, bacterial carbon production, and bacterial growth efficiency all increase with the addition of organic carbon supplements in certain groups of marine bacteria (Carlson, 1996). The presence of a readily assimilated carbon source has been demonstrated to increase the uptake of ammonium in certain groups of marine bacteria (Goldman, 2000). The availability of a particular nutrient can not only affect a bacterial population's growth rate, but also the metabolic functioning of the population. The availability of organic carbon has been shown to not only limit the growth rate of denitrifying bacteria, but also to limit the rate at which denitrification takes place (Brettar, 1992). Chemical entities other than organic carbon, such as inorganic phosphate, also can function as limiting nutrients (Rivkin, 1997).

 

[Brew12]

In mature tank, when facing a mini-cycle, it's the lag phase that is much smaller due to the higher number of bacteria in the mature system. In new tank, their is much less bacteria therefore the lag phase before nitrification process kicks in is much longer.

This is my hang up. If the population of bacteria is based on food availability, then tanks with exactly the same bio load should have exactly the same number of bacteria. Why wouldn't they produce bacteria at the same rate with the only variation being the age of the tank.

I'm not saying you are wrong, only that it isn't making sense to me yet.

 

[reeferfoxx]

I'm not a fan of the title of this thread, for it's bound to lead to misinformation being spread. Perhaps, "Is ghost feeding necessary?" would have been a better choice.

+1

It's not a myth since ghost feeding has a purpose. THAT is my point here.

 

[reeferfoxx]

This is my hang up. If the population of bacteria is based on food availability, then tanks with exactly the same bio load should have exactly the same number of bacteria. Why wouldn't they produce bacteria at the same rate with the only variation being the age of the tank.

I'm not saying you are wrong, only that it isn't making sense to me yet.

I would say that depends on a couple other stipulations. Such as CO2, O2, Light source and if the exact amount of food is being fed and metabolized at the same rate. You might even have to count the pores on the rocks to make sure the surface area is the same. Any resource you look at to show some type of time frame for bacterial reproduction gives round about time frames like 15-24 hours or 15minutes to an hour.

 

[brandon429]

Stunreefer I like your post, am claiming those sustenance sources are plenty set in the tank upon feed withholding and thanks for that link, is relevant here. that is required feed, and its there fully even if we stop adding to it. plus, small amnts get in daily anyway

Reefer-
agreed but there's always a funny confound in these issues where bac show up...its in the feed lines. agreed the water itself doesn't sustain, but, you aren't dealing with autoclaved water, nor install as an aseptic procedure, so contaminations began the first time you filled up that holding tank. I guarantee you I could plate active living colonies out of your ro di, 100% for sure guaranteed, but they wont be very pronounced.

ro di people often have stinky water for that very reason, as soon as scum of any type gets in that holding tank, you have your limited carbon source. you are inputting clean carbon free water usually, agreed, but pipe scums alone make it come out of the tap infected...same with the typical kitchen sink

our water suppliers post up colony count info to show what they weren't able to sterilize at the plant...then that's magnified 100x or better by pipe scum and that little black filthy o ring right at the output source, such that when we make lemonade we drink live nitrifiers. what a filthy world we live in, bac is coming out of a tap that runs 110 degree hot water depending, has no food fed to it, has no ammonia source, and that still supports why ghost feeding is something aquarists do to feel good but isn't required. ok hit me back man!

 

[Brew12]

I would say that depends on a couple other stipulations. Such as CO2, O2, Light source and if the exact amount of food is being fed and metabolized at the same rate. You might even have to count the pores on the rocks to make sure the surface area is the same. Any resource you look at to show some type of time frame for bacterial reproduction gives round about time frames like 15-24 hours or 15minutes to an hour.

I think it has more to do with non uniform distribution of both the bacteria and the ammonia/nitrite. Still thinking about it some more.

 

[reeferfoxx]

Reefer-
agreed but there's always a funny confound in these issues where bac show up...its in the feed lines. agreed the water itself doesn't sustain, but, you aren't dealing with autoclaved water, nor install as an aseptic procedure, so contaminations began the first time you filled up that holding tank. I guarantee you I could plate active living colonies out of your ro di, 100% for sure guaranteed, but they wont be very pronounced.

That is fair to say.

We are stretching into a realm of different types of bacteria rather than the Nitrobacteraceae family of bacteria. This type of bacteria still requires a chemical conversion along with O2 for it's food source. I don't believe or I havent found concrete evidence suggesting dead heterotrophic bacteria would supply food for nitrifying bacteria.

 

[david p.]

This is my hang up. If the population of bacteria is based on food availability, then tanks with exactly the same bio load should have exactly the same number of bacteria. Why wouldn't they produce bacteria at the same rate with the only variation being the age of the tank.

I'm not saying you are wrong, only that it isn't making sense to me yet.

i might have miss interprete your initital statement. if the environment and food source is the same, cycle time/processing capability should be the same. by old/mature tank, i had a different image in mind.
but in that scenario, there is no difference between old and new tank other than age. in reality, older tank are very differrent than new tank, because bioload changes, how we treat our tank, feed, control,etc. Equilibrum is different in a new vs mature tank.

 

[Bdog4u2]

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

I left a 75 gallon fish less for 3 years after they all died. I didn't feed the tank or do any water changes just top off water when it got loud, no lights also. When I decided to add fish again I did a 30 gallon water change and added 4 fish and a shrimp and never had a trace of ammonia. My coraline algae even came back after being in the dark that long.

 

[brandon429]

Bd I cannot fathom a setting in which anyone would post a confirming experience after a baiting title such as... I swear I didn't pay you for that but am that thankful.

What's your ppal addy

 

[david p.]

I left a 75 gallon fish less for 3 years after they all died. I didn't feed the tank or do any water changes just top off water when it got loud, no lights also. When I decided to add fish again I did a 30 gallon water change and added 4 fish and a shrimp and never had a trace of ammonia. My coraline algae even came back after being in the dark that long.

i would compare this to a fish-in cycle (i don't know how to say in english when you cycle your tank with a fish in it). the fish replace the amonia you dose, the dead shrimp you leave for afew days. fish poop start the cycle, amonia level cannot reach 'toxic' level by the time the good bacteria decompose it to less toxic nitrites/nitrates. unless bioload is too much for the volume of water to rely on dilution factor until nitrification process starts.
what size of fish vs 75gal of water. shrimp is low-low bioload.
in freshwater, i always did my cycle with fish. i would not in saltwater, even if i never lost a fish in doing my cycle, i dont want to risk 30 to 100$ on a fish for cycle purpose.

 

[reeferfoxx]

I left a 75 gallon fish less for 3 years after they all died. I didn't feed the tank or do any water changes just top off water when it got loud, no lights also. When I decided to add fish again I did a 30 gallon water change and added 4 fish and a shrimp and never had a trace of ammonia. My coraline algae even came back after being in the dark that long.

Did you own any other tanks?

 

[brandon429]

Though I can't find them now, some of the threads im calling from over the years were rock cooking threads where keepers put live rock in dark bins to purge algae and phosphates for months... No feed, but circulation yes

rocks passed digestion tests after, and were immediately reused with no cycle like big dog said. They're the few who didn't choose to ghost feed but still measured.

Even without those direct examples cuz they're rare, my aim was to show in those cycling and full tank rinse threads/skip cycle threads that bacteria are behaving the same in all these threads... Whether it's skipping a cycle and setting up an sps tank on day one, at home or at a macna convention, or replacing an entire sandbed with no losses or cycle, or dealing with 80 days fallow, we can predict what bacteria will do in an aquarium with a high degree of demo accuracy

Ghost feeding/impacts is the same microbiology as skip cycling.

 

[reeferfoxx]

Though I can't find them some of the threads im calling from over the years were rock cooking threads where keepers put live rock in dark bins to purge algae and phosphates for months... No feed, but circulation yes

rocks passed digestion tests and were immediately reused with no cycle

We established the fact that a tank could cycle itself after long periods. The point is the past. Right now, the new mystery is why anyone keep a fallow tank going for 3 years?

 

[brandon429]

I'm still gonna pay him for the life jacket cast -was getting tired treading alone in puddle

 

[reeferfoxx]

I'm still gonna pay him for the life jacket cast was getting tired treading alone in puddle

I will take "What is necessary for $800, Alex?" kekeke

 

[david p.]

We established the fact that a tank could cycle itself after long periods. The point is the past. Right now, the new mystery is why anyone keep a fallow tank going for 3 years?

i kept a freshwater tank without filtration in my basement cause i was too lasy to tear it down. though i removed all fish. maybe 10-12months later, because of the smell i had to tear it down and i found a loach still healthy and much larger than the last time i saw it!

 

[reeferfoxx]

i kept a freshwater tank without filtration in my basement cause i was too lasy to tear it down. though i removed all fish. maybe 10-12months later, because of the smell i had to tear it down and i found a loach still healthy and much larger than the last time i saw it!

Interesting. LOL

Though, FW fish are more resilient and adaptable than salt.

 

[Bdog4u2]

We established the fact that a tank could cycle itself after long periods. The point is the past. Right now, the new mystery is why anyone keep a fallow tank going for 3 years?

I had 250 lbs of live rock I didn't want to dry out and I planned on putting fish in a lot earlier but just never seamed to happen since my wife had 4 kids in 5 years plus I had a few other tanks.