Pelagic Bacteria Counts & BART Heterotrophic Aerobic Bacteria (HAB) test

[Dr. Dendrostein]

so you need to feed the oysters ? This polutes the water? Do they need light? Hi tide low tide?

The goal for having oysters i was hoping they consume exccess coral food. They did. Problem was refugium outside eventually got diatoms, brown algea, good fir oyster not corals, not favorite food. Very little ubwanted (algae)anything in DT.

 

[Dr. Dendrostein]

Does anyone sleep? Anymore

 

[Lasse]

Thanks for this input Lasse.
So the Hab test result will vary significantly? from test to test due to test tube itself.
If the test could be made accurately it would measure heterotrophic bacteria only. This would include virulent bacteria, but could not distinguish between virulent bacteria & good?
The levelof DOC directly relates to levels of heterotrophic bacteria.

Do you believe bacteria count has any significance in aquarium health? Can it be too high or too low?

.

Maybe a miss understanding of my post or bad English from me. It will test for heterotrophic bacteria for sure and that´s the problem for open seas - it will mist most of the bacteria biomass because the majority of bacteria out to sea is probably photosynthetic cyanobacteria - but as I try to say - heterotrophic bacteria can be of different sorts too. Most - will need something to attach to and IMO - that the most common heterotrophic bacteria. They attach to organic matter because they live on that. Organic matter can be both solid and in form of small particles in the water. The test in open water will test for these and for the small amount of true pelagic bacteria that exist out there. In an aquaria it will test for most of the bacteria community - because it is mostly heterotrophic bacteria that form biofilms on substrate and particles in the water. But - IMO - this test will not show if it is good or bad.

Yes I think it has significance for aquarium health - but in this case I prefer a Swedish word that IMO should be the leading word in all reef keeping - the word is "lagom" It is difficult to translate to English - it is more in the word than the Google accepted translation moderate. It means not to much - not to less - just "lagom". There is an old myth about the word that say a little what it means. The myth says that when Swedish Wikings drink "Mjöd" they have only one beverage cup and each member of the drinking team was only supposed to drink as much as the cup was not empty when it reached the last man (or women) Team in Swedish is "lag" and team around is "lag runt" or could in old Swedish be "lag om". This is a myth - it means that´s not a true story but it explain the word lagom - it should be enough for all.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Jason mack]

Did the bubble come along with a new coral perhaps, or was it in the system already?

Came in on a coral probably ....and I dip all my corals before they go in dt

 

[Dr. Dendrostein]

Maybe a miss understanding of my post or bad English from me. It will test for heterotrophic bacteria for sure and that´s the problem for open seas - it will mist most of the bacteria biomass because the majority of bacteria out to sea is probably photosynthetic cyanobacteria - but as I try to say - heterotrophic bacteria can be of different sorts too. Most - will need something to attach to and IMO - that the most common heterotrophic bacteria. They attach to organic matter because they live on that. Organic matter can be both solid and in form of small particles in the water. The test in open water will test for these and for the small amount of true pelagic bacteria that exist out there. In an aquaria it will test for most of the bacteria community - because it is mostly heterotrophic bacteria that form biofilms on substrate and particles in the water. But - IMO - this test will not show if it is good or bad.

Yes I think it has significance for aquarium health - but in this case I prefer a Swedish word that IMO should be the leading word in all reef keeping - the word is "lagom" It is difficult to translate to English - it is more in the word than the Google accepted translation moderate. It means not to much - not to less - just "lagom". There is an old myth about the word that say a little what it means. The myth says that when Swedish Wikings drink "Mjöd" they have only one beverage cup and each member of the drinking team was only supposed to drink as much as the cup was not empty when it reached the last man (or women) Team in Swedish is "lag" and team around is "lag runt" or could in old Swedish be "lag om". This is a myth - it means that´s not a true story but it explain the word lagom - it should be enough for all.

Sincerely Lasse

lagom- gotta be ,in balance, synchronized, well tuned, in harmony?, natrual, not too much not too little, just right?

 

[Scrubber_steve]

If I’ve got this correct, Feldman says clean skimmed tanks have 1/10 of the total bacteria of a healthy natural reef, and Bart says that tanks have more pelagic bacteria.

This conflict would have to come down to testing method. The person who wrote the Petcha article deduced his conclusion from using the HAB test method. Feldman used a completely different method for test bacteria counts.
But they both came to the same conclusion; high counts are not good.
Feldman showed what everyone knows, that sensitive corals like sps don't do well in aquariums that are not filtered, or "purified" by skimming &/or GAC.
The unfiltered tanks had bac counts similar to reefs, but DOC much higher. The filtered tanks with bacteria counts of only 1/10 of natural reefs, but with similar DOC content to natural reefs, sps do well.

 

[Mortie31]

This conflict would have to come down to testing method. The person who wrote the Petcha article deduced his conclusion from using the HAB test method. Feldman used a completely different method for test bacteria counts.
But they both came to the same conclusion; high counts are not good.
Feldman showed what everyone knows, that sensitive corals like sps don't do well in aquariums that are not filtered, or "purified" by skimming &/or GAC.
The unfiltered tanks had bac counts similar to reefs, but DOC much higher. The filtered tanks with bacteria counts of only 1/10 of natural reefs, but with similar DOC content to natural reefs, sps do well.

It will be interesting to follow as more and improved tests emerge, id love to see how a full triton system will test, which have minimal mechanical filtration, no carbon dosing, little use of GAC and I’ve seen some stonking SPS triton tanks... I think a fuller understanding of this subject is needed before we can even speculate about levels and what’s good and bad...

 

[tripdad]

I'm very interested in this ...I've bee having problems with my tank for a few months now ...its started when I used vibrant to rid my tank from a bubble algea infestation...this worked but I ended up with a bad cyno bacteria ..finally got rid of that ....after nearly crashing my tank with a product called mysicodol....but cyno gone ..now in place of the cyno I have dinos ....my tank looks like $%!¥ and I've lost nearly all my sps...I'm al.ost at my wits end now .....

Your not alone Jason. I have suffered an almost identical series of circumstances to you. Hang in there and keep working, you will win in the end. PS, a uv sterilizer can help get a hold on dino infestation. Blow them off everything daily and get them thru the uv. Good luck. OP, please excuse the detour, just wanted to offer some encouragement to a fellow reefer.

 

[Jason mack]

I've just posted a video of my tank how it is now today on my build thread ...link too it in my signature...I won't post it here ,but if anyone wants too take a look feel free...

 

[Scrubber_steve]

Your not alone Jason. I have suffered an almost identical series of circumstances to you. Hang in there and keep working, you will win in the end. PS, a uv sterilizer can help get a hold on dino infestation. Blow them off everything daily and get them thru the uv. Good luck. OP, please excuse the detour, just wanted to offer some encouragement to a fellow reefer.

No problem at all helping another reefer. And UV is interesting in regards to bacteria counts in any case.
What effect might a properly set up UV sterilizer have on bacteria counts overall, especially where GAC & skimming are used & couts are only 1/10 comapred to a healthy reef?

 

[Jason mack]

No problem at all helping another reefer. And UV is interesting in regards to bacteria counts in any case.
What effect might a properly set up UV sterilizer have on bacteria counts overall, especially where GAC & skimming are used & couts are only 1/10 comapred to a healthy reef?

Well as you know Steve I started another thread over uv,s ...i know they can help , but there's a lot of discussion on which is needed too kill water borne parasites and pathogens....all the good ones that have been recommended too me are either expensive or massive ...

 

[Jason mack]

I run a skimmer a bubble magnus c6 on my 90g ...I'm burning through rowaphos in a media reactor and i have a DIY algea turf scrubber on my tank...I know there is an unbalance In my tank from the cyno and dinos ...

 

[Scrubber_steve]

Well as you know Steve I started another thread over uv,s ...i know they can help , but there's a lot of discussion on which is needed too kill water borne parasites and pathogens....all the good ones that have been recommended too me are either expensive or massive ...

The cheaper & smaller ones can take care of phyto, but to kill pathogens for example something more serious would be needed.

 

[tripdad]

No problem at all helping another reefer. And UV is interesting in regards to bacteria counts in any case.
What effect might a properly set up UV sterilizer have on bacteria counts overall, especially where GAC & skimming are used & couts are only 1/10 comapred to a healthy reef?

I can't testify with any verifiable actual science, only ad hoc observations. I still got a bacterial bloom from a "treatment/additive" even with the UV showing a decline in the Dino's(a substantial one),so I'm guessing their efficacy may vary widely depending on the bacterium discussed, JMO.

 

[Jason mack]

The cheaper & smaller ones can take care of phyto, but to kill pathogens for example something more serious would be needed.

Yes, but I can't imagine people with small systems spending 700 euros for a uv that you could use on a pond or swimming pool ...that's probably longer than their tank stand .. what other options are available..

 

[Scrubber_steve]

Yes, but I can't imagine people with small systems spending 700 euros for a uv that you could use on a pond or swimming pool ...that's probably longer than their tank stand .. what other options are available..

@glennf uses an 18W UV Jason. Seems to do the job for him, if that helps.

 

[Hans-Werner]

In this article Haas et al. say that different bacteria have different kinds of metabolism. The copiotrophic bacteria living on the sugars excreted by algae (i. e. Vibrio spp.) consume more oxygen and are possible pathogens to corals, other invertebrates and fish. Methylen blue is an redox indicator showing when oxygen is depleted and methylen blue is reduced. Supplied with the proper nutrients like amongst others sugars this test could simply show how many copiotrophic bacteria are at the start when adding the sample to the test vial. This could be an indication how "healthy" the bacterial flora of a tank is.

In my experience tanks showing signs of cloudiness and pelagic bacteria rarely have a good coral growth. Usually they are also high in nutrients and frequently the nutrients were blamed for the bad coral growth. Now many reefers add nutrients without reporting adverse effects. Maybe in fact it were the bacteria in the high nutrient aquariums that are to blame for the bad coral growth.

Addition: On the other side additives that clarify the water usually have a beneficial effect to corals. So stripping the water of bacteria seems to have a positive effect to corals. One additive I use that makes the water extremely clear although it is a kind of organic carbon dosing has a very good effect to corals. A bacteria count with epifluorescence microscopy showed low numbers of planktonic bacteria, one to two orders of magnitude lower than in natural reefs.
This leads me to the question whether skimmed reef tanks are always clearer?

 

[brandon429]

This isn't a shameless plug for sand rinsing although it's convenient.

When I read the links here and consider bacteria/eutrophic states and reversal, biological oxygen demand, succession of microbial communities related to tank params and physicalities like current, catch points in the tank, bioloading, water change habits, dsb philosophy (don't touch it ever vs the stirrers or full cleaners) the sand rinse thread in my opinion is a years long collection of outcomes of aquariums that took the harshest mode possible to reduce heterogeneity among microbial communities, suspended and benthic

Patterns can be discerned in the follow ups. we tried to remove all the excess, at once, not as a ramp down so commonly advised then (and now, still)


to have thirty aquariums or better instantly try and reduce the BOD to the maximum, total detritus removal all at once, reduce the diversity of both pelagic and benthic bacteria along with whatever invader they have by replacing an entire sandbed all at once + 100% water change + externally rinsed and rasped rocks is a full study in what you guys are talking about. It's the mechanical way of getting there it seems.

The work links and pics of people ripping out sandbeds and rinsing off rocks in jets of saltwater to unplug and restore porosity leaves the tank sparkling clean, and as findings on this thread showed our corals were healthier after the work, not stressed. They were stressed before we 100% cleaned the entire system. The rules of the day favor growing bacteria, paying for them. Dosing them, adding to loading but we rip it out

I would enjoy seeing any other application links where microbiology in aquariums is affected physically across many tanks


https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/t...ead-aka-one-against-many.230281/#post-2681445
Though we didn't use specific testing to assess colony counts after cleaning, some of the inevitable visual cues associated with oligotrophy vs eutrophic conditions are patterned in follow up and this does reflect on suspended and adhered colony counts in my opinion. We grab sand and drop it within the tank where it’s cloudless, we’ve removed as much bacteria as is physically possible without medication or soaps.

Can't wait to see threads like this unfold where actual bacterial assessments can confirm or deny what we assess with environmental visual details alone.

 

[Lasse]

Methylen blue is an redox indicator showing when oxygen is depleted and methylen blue is reduced.

It is a bactericide too - often used in fresh water aquaria.

Addition: On the other side additives that clarify the water usually have a beneficial effect to corals. So stripping the water of bacteria seems to have a positive effect to corals. One additive I use that makes the water extremely clear although it is a kind of organic carbon dosing has a very good effect to corals. A bacteria count with epifluorescence microscopy showed low numbers of planktonic bacteria, one to two orders of magnitude lower than in natural reefs.
This leads me to the question whether skimmed reef tanks are always clearer?

For me - it is not enough to note that aquaria with low count of bacteria in the water coloumn seems to have more healthy corals because the low count can be a result of healthy corals predation of bacteria - but if you can prove the statement in the quote with some type of "mechanical" or with some method of precipitation - you maybe have a stronger case - IMO - a method using organic carbon can´t rule out the explanation of predation.

It is also important to define what we means with the word "corals" IMO - there is a huge difference between different types of corals in this section of reef keeping too.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[glennf]

To much of anything is bad.
It also depend on what animal you want to keep
Acroprora's require clear water with low organic waste.
Comatula's, and other filterfeeders do better with "wasteloaded" water.

N/P can't be removed from water directly, so we add carbon dosing to convert them to bacteria.
This can be removed partially by skimming and by powerfiltering . I don't use GAC.

[emoji843]️With Carbon added You can control N/P.
[emoji843]️With powerfilter you can control organic bounded matter in your tank

Because to much off any of then is harmfull for your inhabitants.