Not gonna lie looks like snake oil

[BZOFIQ]

Isn’t this basically the same as getting some sand and rubble from a friend’s established tank?

Yep, that's what we all did in the past....but money wasn't made that way.

 

[BZOFIQ]

...I sent him in the same sample labeled differently and the results came back wildly different. ..

Now, that's a problem

 

[bnord]

interesting and sort of as expected, but we know that this detects DNA from all those organisms listed. It does not imply that those organisms are live/replicating/viable.

What would be interesting would be a testing of a tank before addition and 2-3 weeks after adding the rubble - smile

 

[benmed]

I think the diversity will definitely be a positive thing but there doesn't look to be very much rubble there and I remember hearing in an Aquabiomics video that the bacteria compete with each other and so after a while you end up with a good bit less diversity than you started with...due to that I'm not sure how much that small quantity will do for you...I guess it depends on your tank size and maintenance how much the biodiversity spreads throughout the tank. I'm definitely no expert though of course, just my opinion gathered from "here and there".

I agree that diversity is probably a good thing. Essentially, it is capitalism in your tank. Put as many species in your tank and see which one does the best and they will become dominant. I don’t think the diversity in that jar will last as the less competitive organisms for your tank are outcompeted. BUT… you gave them a chance. I think the point is that by having a bunch of organisms around that may, perhaps, benefit from an explosion of algae or other organism, they may be able to rein in that explosion.

that’s my theory. I just bought a jar of the sand myself and put it in my fuge.

 

[ReefGeezer]

It is an interesting marketing ploy. I think there might be two questions to consider before buying. Do the strains identified really represent an optimal biome? If so, could these strains outcompete the existing biome?

 

[doubleshot00]

interesting and sort of as expected, but we know that this detects DNA from all those organisms listed. It does not imply that those organisms are live/replicating/viable.

What would be interesting would be a testing of a tank before addition and 2-3 weeks after adding the rubble - smile

Would have been cool to send a test in before then wait a month then send in another. BUT

 

[Garf]

Pathogen free? Excellent, right up to the point you add a fish, coral, rock stuck to coral, blah blah blah.

 

[doubleshot00]

Yep, that's what we all did in the past....but money wasn't made that way.

Kinda what i wish was more available. Like the two shops around here don't even offer live rock/rubble. To me that's an easy $50-100 sale for something that sits in your tanks sumps.

 

[TangerineSpeedo]

Kinda what i wish was more available. Like the two shops around here don't even offer live rock/rubble. To me that's an easy $50-100 sale for something that sits in your tanks sumps.

Again, there is the ocean. And Juan at 7seas will sell you a piece of rock for $100, Club LAX has bins of it.

 

[livinlifeinBKK]

Yeah, I'm kinda on the side of 'if you want the biodiversity from the ocean' get some live rocks from the ocean...I do understand some people just want it for their sump though although I'm not sure how much of that biodiversity would spread readily from the sump to the rest of the tank and seed the whole tank

 

[MnFish1]

Testing and DNA sequencing are comparing apples and rhinos. DNA sequencing determines the order of the four chemical building blocks - called "bases" - that make up the DNA molecule. How this applies to "testing" I don't know. I don't want to be "that guy" about this but claims like this don't make sense. This has nothing to do with the guy's ethics or honesty.

They use the DNA sequence(s) that they find like finger prints - to match the DNA sequences of known DNA from different organisms. There are numerous ways do to the actual sequencing (ie. determining the order of the 4 bases) and the comparison - but they are using 'DNA sequencing' to identify which bacteria are present.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Pathogen free? Excellent, right up to the point you add a fish, coral, rock stuck to coral, blah blah blah.

It really depends on the view point, Amphidinium carterae according to google can be toxic if it blooms. The good news is if the op gets dinoflagellates he got a starting point there to identify the species.

 

[shakacuz]

Was your cyano terrible or just a little here and there?

it was patchy. so my results are nearly coincidental. but i do believe the sand contributed to adding good biodiversity alongside MB clean and MB7, which i’ve been dosing for months prior just at a very small dose so my nutrients don’t bottom out

 

[MnFish1]

My problem(s) with this are a couple:

1. There is no proof that a mixture of bacteria x, y, and z - is any better than bacteria a, b, c. Granted - they tell you what is in the sample they send you - but 'who cares' as @bnord said, there is no guarantee that those bacteria will survive and thrive in YOUR tank. So - you're spending money to 'know' what bacteria are there - but its wasting money IMHO.
2. I would strongly guess based on what I've read - that they sample a small batch of a certain big batch - and then assume that all of the smaller jars contain the same organisms as the sample they took. I do not know (think) there is any reason to expect that they are able to know that all of the jars contain the same bacteria as the smaller sample.
3. I believe that putting bacteria x, y, z from a small jar of rubble will quickly cause x,y,z to be outcompeted from the bacteria already in the tank. I suppose if you use it in a brand new tank - they may be the predominant bacteria - but who knows if they are the 'best' bacteria.

Example - If I took 10 Giraffes and put them into the wild in Idaho - diversity would increase - but not for long. If I took 30 alpine plants from a high altitude - and planted them in Iowa - it would temporarily increase diversity - but they would not survive.

Various studies have shown - when adding bacteria to a closed system - 1 of 2 things happen - either the old bacteria eventually out-compete the new bacteria - or the new bacteria take over the established bacteria resulting in either no net change in 'diversity' or a net loss.

 

[MnFish1]

it was patchy. so my results are nearly coincidental. but i do believe the sand contributed to adding good biodiversity alongside MB clean and MB7, which i’ve been dosing for months prior just at a very small dose so my nutrients don’t bottom out

This would be an interesting study - but difficult. 2 small tanks with cyan covered rocks - add the rubble to one of the. tanks - add sterile coral pieces to the other (and replicate it like 10 times) my guess is that there would be no difference for various reasons. It would be nice to know what experiments Aquabiomics has done.

Note I don't think it's anything like other products that are potentially fraudulent. i.e I believe that purchasers are getting what they are paying for. My questions is would that money be better spent on other things.

 

[livinlifeinBKK]

This would be an interesting study - but difficult. 2 small tanks with cyan covered rocks - add the rubble to one of the. tanks - add sterile coral pieces to the other (and replicate it like 10 times) my guess is that there would be no difference for various reasons. It would be nice to know what experiments Aquabiomics has done.

Note I don't think it's anything like other products that are potentially fraudulent. i.e I believe that purchasers are getting what they are paying for. My questions is would that money be better spent on other things.

Money would be better spent on just adding a few chunks of live ocean rock to the display imo... wouldn't that host even more bacterial species to outcompete the cyano?

 

[areefer01]

Testing and DNA sequencing are comparing apples and rhinos. DNA sequencing determines the order of the four chemical building blocks - called "bases" - that make up the DNA molecule. How this applies to "testing" I don't know. I don't want to be "that guy" about this but claims like this don't make sense. This has nothing to do with the guy's ethics or honesty.

Then you could spend a few minutes and search on the product name and read his bio and get a little bit more educated. There are several talks he has conducted that lays out how he does his DNA sampling and the reports he provides.

This thread really shocks me. I am seeing more and more posts here by so called fellow hobbyist that I'm starting to feel like this isn't the right venue.

 

[radfly]

Maybe? My degrees are in computer science and I'll admit to not looking up everything listed. Pretty zoas though.

I want that Zoa, lol.

 

[MnFish1]

Money would be better spent on just adding a few chunks of live ocean rock to the display imo... wouldn't that host even more bacterial species to outcompete the cyano?

I do not think adding bacteria will outcompete cyano - at least not the numbers of bacteria added on a piece of live rock. The supposed advantage to Aquabiomics is that you know the bacteria you're adding - again - I'm not sure that makes a difference. SO - I guess to answer your question - it would make more sense to add live rock without knowing the bacteria on it.

BTW - IMHO - if one wanted to make a product that 'reliably' increased diversity - and affected pest algae, etc - the best way would be to individually culture whatever bacteria you want to add - mix it in a jar - and add it to the tank. That way - you know each batch is identical, and that you should have similar results. You would also know its pathogen free. There should be no reason to include 'the rubble'

 

[MnFish1]

Then you could spend a few minutes and search on the product name and read his bio and get a little bit more educated. There are several talks he has conducted that lays out how he does his DNA sampling and the reports he provides.

This thread really shocks me. I am seeing more and more posts here by so called fellow hobbyist that I'm starting to feel like this isn't the right venue.

I'm a microbiologist - and a hobbyist. I have no problem with his 'methods' or products per se. Disagreeing with someone is not necessarily a personal attack. I would suggest (and many would disagree) that adding any bacterial product (except with an initial cycle) - is likely to have little effect in increasing diversity long-term - and I question whether increasing diversity alone should even be a goal?