The Bacterial “Rip Clean” Method

[argonaut]

Color Balance is not a product from Tropic Marin. It is from a competing company called Fauna Marin. They are both german companies. It came later after Tropic Marin introduced Reef Actif.
To be honest there is no much information and discussion in german forums about this product. I found one thread where Fauna Marin replied:

"Coral Balance is a very special mixture, the product itself does not act directly but makes bound nutrients and elements available in an aquarium system for the corals and symbiotic bacteria in corals. We use a special mixture of natural marine biopolymers which are partly extracted for us. These are not industrial alginates or simple sugar compounds, as they have the same disadvantages in the long run as all short chain carbon sources. With Coral Balance bound depots are opened and converted into coral biomass, or made skimmable and removed from the system. It is necessary that many different groups of bacteria work together, this results in the important side effect that the bacterial diversity in the system is maintained and the organic components contained in natural seawater also persist in older systems."

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

it’s amazing how small changes can do such a difference I always connect glass cleaning with excess nutrients that a system can’t handle on its own.

Is there a reason to know that is not what happened here?

Organic carbon dosing obviously has the potential to reduce nutrients and/or trace elements to the point where algae slows, and isn't necessarily desirable, IMO, if something gets too low so that desired organisms suffer or dino risks rise.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Is there a reason to know that is not what happened here?

Organic carbon dosing obviously has the potential to reduce nutrients and/or trace elements to the point where algae slows, and isn't necessarily desirable, IMO, if something gets too low so that desired organisms suffer or dino risks rise.

a raise in nutrients is what causes micro algae’s to create the film algae that we are so familiar, adjusting those depleted nutrients will have different effects, for example in your silica article you were able to change from green to brown film by just making the silica nutrient more available. With Carbon is fairly similar at the end of the day is a replacement of the end user organism or a way to redirect nutrient to allow more desirable organisms to colonise surfaces, the film will still be on the glass is just more translucent and not visible to the naked eye giving a idea that the glass is clean. Similar to silica being a depleted nutrient to allow diatoms to thrive carbon is a limiting nutrient for heterotrophic bacteria and same as with silica one can increase or decrease those films with the abundance or depletion of key nutrients.

in relation to carbon being a risk of desirable organism to suffer is minimal if done correctly, desirable organisms will not suffer as long as there is a residual of nitrates and phosphates in a system. The risk of dinoflagellates only exists if nitrates and phosphates are fully depleted or if the carbon source is suddenly stopped, imo the mistake that folks often do wend depleting a system from nitrates or phosphates using dissolved organic carbon is the sudden stop of DOC dosing, it would be more safe to raise the depleted nutrient via dosing Vs stop adding DOC.
in addition corals (often the most desirable organisms) are mixotrophs and can get energy from preying on bacteria, zooxanthellae (autotrophic) will only be at risk if nitrates or phosphates become depleted.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Color Balance is not a product from Tropic Marin. It is from a competing company called Fauna Marin. They are both german companies. It came later after Tropic Marin introduced Reef Actif.
To be honest there is no much information and discussion in german forums about this product. I found one thread where Fauna Marin replied:

"Coral Balance is a very special mixture, the product itself does not act directly but makes bound nutrients and elements available in an aquarium system for the corals and symbiotic bacteria in corals. We use a special mixture of natural marine biopolymers which are partly extracted for us. These are not industrial alginates or simple sugar compounds, as they have the same disadvantages in the long run as all short chain carbon sources. With Coral Balance bound depots are opened and converted into coral biomass, or made skimmable and removed from the system. It is necessary that many different groups of bacteria work together, this results in the important side effect that the bacterial diversity in the system is maintained and the organic components contained in natural seawater also persist in older systems."

I did not heard from it till earlier today, on paper it looks fairly similar

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

With Carbon is fairly similar at the end of the day is a replacement of the end user organism or a way to redirect nutrient to allow more desirable organisms to colonise surfaces, the film will still be on the glass is just more translucent and not visible to the naked eye giving a idea that the glass is clean. Similar to silica being a depleted nutrient to allow diatoms to thrive carbon is a limiting nutrient for heterotrophic bacteria and same as with silica one can increase or decrease those films with the abundance or depletion of key nutrients.

I understand what you are claiming about physical competition for space, but I’ve not seen evidence of it being the explanation rather than simple competition for a needed material.

 

[beesnreefs]

I’ve been interested to this thread because (a) I’m drawn to the idea that we can build up the biome to prevent/eliminate nuisances like GHA/cyano, and (b) because I recognize I have a lot to learn about reefkeeping

With that spirit in mind, @Randy Holmes-Farley i appreciate your knowledge, experience and perspective as much as people like @sixty_reefer. Randy, what would your general approach be to eliminating and preventing things like GHA?

 

[argonaut]

I did not heard from it till earlier today, on paper it looks fairly similar

Yes, I think it will be almost identical. Faunamarin still specifies trace elements.
If I were to bet, I would say the main ingredient is simply calcium alginate. Alginate are used in fish farming to encapsulate bacteria and active ingredients. Also, there is a patent on alginate beads to lower nutrients in a kind of reactor (some kind of pellet filter?).
I assume these products are mostly alginate and some mineral carrier like zeolite.
I am tempted to make my own mixture. I'm a fan of DIY, but I also love my reef tank. To that extent, I'll leave it alone for now.
What I also find quite interesting, alginates are an ideal nutrient medium and lead to a significant increase in all kinds of bacteria. In addition, bacteria attach themselves to the alginate slime. Maybe you can transport and protect bacteria additives better by adding them to the Reef Actif and letting them sit for a while.
Just an idea...

 

[elysics]

Wasn't there a quote earlier in this thread where Hans Werner admitted that there was alginate in it, but only as a small proportion and not as the only polymer?

 

[elysics]

Here it is, can't attach quotes when editing for some reason:

In fact alginate is one of the marine biopolymers included in Reef Actif but only to a small proportion.

 

[sixty_reefer]

I understand what you are claiming about physical competition for space, but I’ve not seen evidence of it being the explanation rather than simple competition for a needed material.

There is an interesting study that illustrates that heterotrophic bacteria will outcompete picophytoplankton (Cyanobacteria, dinoflagellates and film algae are in this group) as long as organic carbon is not limited it also illustrates that in the carbon limited experiments that picothytoplankton would become abundant.
I wouldn’t put it down as a competition for space but a increase in a limiting nutrient for growth

quote:

A laboratory experiment was performed to test whether differences in nutrient and energy demands between picophytoplankton and heterotrophic bacteria can explain the apparent inverse biomass relationship between these organisms in lakes along gradients of organic carbon and nutrients. Growth rates and final yield of cells were analyzed in crossed gradients of glucose and phosphate. Concentrations of phosphate (10, 25, and 60 microg P L(-1)) and glucose (0, 0.3, and 3 mg C L(-1)) were used in all possible combinations giving 9 different treatments. Heterotrophic bacteria had higher maximum growth rates in all treatments and became larger than picophytoplankton in many treatments. The variance in abundance of heterotrophic bacteria between treatments could almost completely be explained by the combined effects of glucose and P. In treatments where carbon limitation slowed down the growth of heterotrophic bacteria, picophytoplankton became abundant and these organisms showed a positive response to P in combination with a negative response to glucose. The negative effect of glucose on picophytoplankton is suggested to be indirect and caused by competition with bacteria that are favored by organic C. The results suggest that competition for phosphate between phytoplankton and bacteria is not size-dependent, that heterotrophic bacteria are superior competitors for P, and that organic C produced by picophytoplankton was of minor importance for heterotrophic bacteria.

source:

Competition between picoplanktonic cyanobacteria and heterotrophic bacteria along crossed gradients of glucose and phosphate - PubMed

A laboratory experiment was performed to test whether differences in nutrient and energy demands between picophytoplankton and heterotrophic bacteria can explain the apparent inverse biomass relationship between these organisms in lakes along gradients of organic carbon and nutrients. Growth...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

There is an interesting study that illustrates that heterotrophic bacteria will outcompete picophytoplankton (Cyanobacteria, dinoflagellates and film algae are in this group) as long as organic carbon is not limited it also illustrates that in the carbon limited experiments that picothytoplankton would become abundant.
I wouldn’t put it down as a competition for space but a increase in a limiting nutrient for growth

quote:

A laboratory experiment was performed to test whether differences in nutrient and energy demands between picophytoplankton and heterotrophic bacteria can explain the apparent inverse biomass relationship between these organisms in lakes along gradients of organic carbon and nutrients. Growth rates and final yield of cells were analyzed in crossed gradients of glucose and phosphate. Concentrations of phosphate (10, 25, and 60 microg P L(-1)) and glucose (0, 0.3, and 3 mg C L(-1)) were used in all possible combinations giving 9 different treatments. Heterotrophic bacteria had higher maximum growth rates in all treatments and became larger than picophytoplankton in many treatments. The variance in abundance of heterotrophic bacteria between treatments could almost completely be explained by the combined effects of glucose and P. In treatments where carbon limitation slowed down the growth of heterotrophic bacteria, picophytoplankton became abundant and these organisms showed a positive response to P in combination with a negative response to glucose. The negative effect of glucose on picophytoplankton is suggested to be indirect and caused by competition with bacteria that are favored by organic C. The results suggest that competition for phosphate between phytoplankton and bacteria is not size-dependent, that heterotrophic bacteria are superior competitors for P, and that organic C produced by picophytoplankton was of minor importance for heterotrophic bacteria.

source:

Competition between picoplanktonic cyanobacteria and heterotrophic bacteria along crossed gradients of glucose and phosphate - PubMed

A laboratory experiment was performed to test whether differences in nutrient and energy demands between picophytoplankton and heterotrophic bacteria can explain the apparent inverse biomass relationship between these organisms in lakes along gradients of organic carbon and nutrients. Growth...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Yes, that's why people use organic carbon dosing to reduce nutrients.

 

[Hans-Werner]

Tropic Marin® Reef Actif
As far as I am aware this product has been around for some time. at least (15 years)

Yes, Reef Actif is more than 15 years old now. I have to say I found the main ingredient by a screening. At that time (2007) there was a hype about some additives most of which where simply mineral particles (clay, clinoptilolith, a zeolith, etc.) which may have some effect, most likely due to adsorption.

I looked for something that may have a similar effect and tried different minerals and organic substances that may show the same or a similar effect. With most minerals in my eyes the results were very disappointing, I saw no effect. But with one of the organic substances I had a lot more polyp extension of Acropora and other corals in just a few days. I also saw a significantly better growth of the basal discs of Acropora which other users also described. Other users that were more fish centered reported "improved" behavior of fish with more mating behavior. With time I added some other biopolymers that improved or at least did not lessen effect and may address more bacteria species.

I did a lot of research on google scholar and bought some books and found no 100 % explanation until today. For sure it is a bacterial thing, it is repeatably positive, and due to the nature of the biopolymers it is a kind of prebiotic effect.

I learned a lot about bacteria mobilizing nutrients since then and I also learned to read and understand behavior of corals better, especially in relation to nutrients. There are probiotic phosphate solubilising bacteria in the genus Rhizobium. Rhizobium-like bacteria are known as diazotrophs (nitrogen fixers) in coral reefs and as symbiotic diazotrophs of the coral holobiont. I am sure it is in this direction, I think mainly the phosphate solubilisation. The brighter colors of corals strongly point in this direction. It is sometimes suspected as being a copper effect but no copper is added and no elevated copper concentrations are found in the water. Brighter coral colors are most likely the result of better phosphate availability and improved coral growth. This shifts the coral colors away from deep colors with high nitrogen to bright colors with improved phosphate availability and tipping the balance away from nitrogen.

Finally, there is no way to observe it directly but I want to make trials which may show the phosphate solubilising property of bacteria grown on Reef Actif.

Effects observed in fish could be due to general prebiotic effects or due to binding of ammonium and lowering free ammonium concentrations in the water. Also in fish phosphate solubilisation and improved availability of phosphate may have positive effects.

 

[reefluvrr]

There are probiotic phosphate solubilising bacteria in the genus Rhizobium. Rhizobium-like bacteria are known as diazotrophs (nitrogen fixers) in coral reefs and as symbiotic diazotrophs of the coral holobiont. I am sure it is in this direction, I think mainly the phosphate solubilisation.

Can Reef Actif stimulate the right kind of bacteria growth even in a new tank only using Dry Rocks and sand?

 

[sixty_reefer]

Yes, Reef Actif is more than 15 years old now. I have to say I found the main ingredient by a screening. At that time (2007) there was a hype about some additives most of which where simply mineral particles (clay, clinoptilolith, a zeolith, etc.) which may have some effect, most likely due to adsorption.

I looked for something that may have a similar effect and tried different minerals and organic substances that may show the same or a similar effect. With most minerals in my eyes the results were very disappointing, I saw no effect. But with one of the organic substances I had a lot more polyp extension of Acropora and other corals in just a few days. I also saw a significantly better growth of the basal discs of Acropora which other users also described. Other users that were more fish centered reported "improved" behavior of fish with more mating behavior. With time I added some other biopolymers that improved or at least did not lessen effect and may address more bacteria species.

I did a lot of research on google scholar and bought some books and found no 100 % explanation until today. For sure it is a bacterial thing, it is repeatably positive, and due to the nature of the biopolymers it is a kind of prebiotic effect.

I learned a lot about bacteria mobilizing nutrients since then and I also learned to read and understand behavior of corals better, especially in relation to nutrients. There are probiotic phosphate solubilising bacteria in the genus Rhizobium. Rhizobium-like bacteria are known as diazotrophs (nitrogen fixers) in coral reefs and as symbiotic diazotrophs of the coral holobiont. I am sure it is in this direction, I think mainly the phosphate solubilisation. The brighter colors of corals strongly point in this direction. It is sometimes suspected as being a copper effect but no copper is added and no elevated copper concentrations are found in the water. Brighter coral colors are most likely the result of better phosphate availability and improved coral growth. This shifts the coral colors away from deep colors with high nitrogen to bright colors with improved phosphate availability and tipping the balance away from nitrogen.

Finally, there is no way to observe it directly but I want to make trials which may show the phosphate solubilising property of bacteria grown on Reef Actif.

Effects observed in fish could be due to general prebiotic effects or due to binding of ammonium and lowering free ammonium concentrations in the water. Also in fish phosphate solubilisation and improved availability of phosphate may have positive effects.

Thank you @Hans-Werner for developing this great product.
On a side note, you could off made this information available online or earlier on the thread, it would of saved me months in research trying to understand the observation I’ve made in my system.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Here it is, can't attach quotes when editing for some reason:

Thanks.

 

[Hans-Werner]

Can Reef Actif stimulate the right kind of bacteria growth even in a new tank only using Dry Rocks and sand?

I think it is advantageous to introduce bacteria from a well running tank (a bit of sand/substrate) or with a few algae and with the cleaning crew or something else that most likely carries in some bacteria. With natural calcareous rock it should work well. Ceramics are a bit different, but at least it will support bacterial growth with any kind of rock.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I think mainly the phosphate solubilisation.

Thanks, Hans-Werner. Can you clarify where is the phosphate (before solubilization) that you hypothesize is being solubilized?

If the water has significant dissolved phosphate (say, 0.1 ppm), why is it beneficial to solubilize more?

By solubilize, do you perhaps mean incorporate into organic matter/bacteria and thereby alter its bioavailability?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Randy, what would your general approach be to eliminating and preventing things like GHA?

IMO, it is generally easier and most successful to reduce GHA with herbivores (especially fish) than by nutrient control.

If one does want to try to reduce nutrients (or a trace element) to the point where GHA is limited in growth, you may need to ensure the corals in the tank are getting adequate nutrition in other ways than absorption of inorganic nutrients, such as dosing phytoplankton, organic carbon dosing to increase bacterial levels, dosing amino acids, dosing particulate coral foods, etc.

It is also important to use rocks that are already coated with bacteria or coralline algae to reduce places for algae to attach.

 

[Hans-Werner]

Thanks, Hans-Werner. Can you clarify where is the phosphate (before solubilization) that you hypothesize is being solubilized?

If the water has significant dissolved phosphate (say, 0.1 ppm), why is it beneficial to solubilize more?

By solubilize, do you perhaps mean incorporate into organic matter/bacteria and thereby alter its bioavailability?

Before solubilization the phosphate is mainly in the sand/gravel/substrate. Reef Actif works best in tanks with sand/gravel/substrate. The coral sand/gravel used for reef aquaria is quite high in phosphate.

For the second question we would have to have more in-depth comparisons (including i. e. color comparisons) which I don't have. The prebiotic effect is independent of the phosphate solubilization. I am quite sure that many of the more fish-centered reefers had higher phosphate concentrations.

By solubilization in general a real phosphate dissolving effect of the bacteria is meant. The bacteria convert organic substances into organic acids like acetic acid and dissolve phosphate in this way. If this phosphate dissolving bacteria are in a symbiotic relationship with plants or corals usually the bacteria receive polymeric organic substances, i. e. slime, from their partner and they deliver phosphate to their partner. In corals this could mean they corals feed on the growing bacteria. Also the mutualistic partnerships of trees and fungi work this way.

The probiotic effect of the bacteria is not too different from this mechanism. Probiotic bacteria release volatile fatty acids or short-chain fatty acids which "are the main energy source of colonocytes, making them crucial to gastrointestinal health." This seems also the case in fish.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Before solubilization the phosphate is mainly in the sand/gravel/substrate. Reef Actif works best in tanks with sand/gravel/substrate. The coral sand/gravel used for reef aquaria is quite high in phosphate.

For the second question we would have to have more in-depth comparisons (including i. e. color comparisons) which I don't have. The prebiotic effect is independent of the phosphate solubilization. I am quite sure that many of the more fish-centered reefers had higher phosphate concentrations.

By solubilization in general a real phosphate dissolving effect of the bacteria is meant. The bacteria convert organic substances into organic acids like acetic acid and dissolve phosphate in this way. If this phosphate dissolving bacteria are in a symbiotic relationship with plants or corals usually the bacteria receive polymeric organic substances, i. e. slime, from their partner and they deliver phosphate to their partner. In corals this could mean they corals feed on the growing bacteria. Also the mutualistic partnerships of trees and fungi work this way.

The probiotic effect of the bacteria is not too different from this mechanism. Probiotic bacteria release volatile fatty acids or short-chain fatty acids which "are the main energy source of colonocytes, making them crucial to gastrointestinal health." This seems also the case in fish.

Thank you, Hans Werner.