This aquarium concept challenges your views on microbiology, lets collect and compare answers

[Gregg @ ADP]

True. But nitrifying bacteria that use ammonia use it obligatory

Exactly.

Lots of diversity in the bacterial world. But nitrifying bacteria can’t blow through the system NH3/4 and then just move on to something else.

 

[Lasse]

NH3/NH4 are for nitrifying bacteria what light is for plants - it is very few plants (but they exist) that partly can go heterotrophic in some way - but non (as I know) can total manage without light.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Lousybreed]

I am sorry, I wasnt just talking about nitrifing bacteria......just talking about the overall bacteria population. There are 1000's of bacteria species interacting together in our tanks. We have no idea how they work together, communicate, and grow. I am thinking big picture. Lasse....I am not arguing with your input at all, you are thinking bacteria specific and I am thinking the tank biome.....and to be clear I fully agree that all bacteria have a way of going dormant or they would go extinct.....

 

[Lousybreed]

Be it a spore, tough biogrowth, etc......

 

[Lasse]

I´m thinking in an holistic way but according to nitrifying bacteria - there is some absolute demands as we know it for the moment. And every waste water treatment plant in the whole wide world is build on the interaction between aerobic autotrophs and aerobic heterotrophs of different strains. It is well known mechanisms.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Matt Carden]

There is a thread out running right now about a stalled cycle where EC suggests to turn your heater up to 90°F to aid in bacteria colonies populating the rock. I thought I watched the thread so I could link the post but I couldn't find it. Anyone here have any comments about this?

 

[Dr. Reef]

The temperature for optimum growth of nitrifying bacteria is between 77-86° F (25-30° C).
Growth rate is decreased by 50% at 64° F (18° C).
Growth rate is decreased by 75% at 46-50° F.
No activity will occur at 39° F (4° C)
Nitrifying bacteria will die at 32° F (0° C).
Nitrifying bacteria will die at 120° F (49° C)

90 is a bit high, Most all vendors i talked to when i started my study on bacteria recommended to keep tanks at 76-78F

 

[Lousybreed]

I´m thinking in an holistic way but according to nitrifying bacteria - there is some absolute demands as we know it for the moment. And every waste water treatment plant in the whole wide world is build on the interaction between aerobic autotrophs and aerobic heterotrophs of different strains. It is well known mechanisms.

Sincerely Lasse

I am not sure how you can compare waste water treatment plants to a reef tank. One is freshwater and one is saltwater. One is full of human waste, prescription drugs, etc and the other is an ecosystem. We aren’t even talking about the same thing so it really doesn’t matter. There is no extensive research on how bacteria interact in a reef tank. I get you have study after study on waste water plants. That doesn’t apply to what goes on in a reef tank. Just like bacteria grown in milk based media behave and grow completely different than the same bacteria in a yeast and sugar based media. And that is just a single strain. Co-fermentation’s get even crazier. I am not questioning your knowledge about waste water treatment plants, nor the exact nitrification cycle. We don’t understand more than 10% of what is going on in our own body’s microbiome, we essentially know nothing about a reef aquarium.

 

[MnFish1]

I am not sure how you can compare waste water treatment plants to a reef tank. One is freshwater and one is saltwater. One is full of human waste, prescription drugs, etc and the other is an ecosystem. We aren’t even talking about the same thing so it really doesn’t matter. There is no extensive research on how bacteria interact in a reef tank. I get you have study after study on waste water plants. That doesn’t apply to what goes on in a reef tank. Just like bacteria grown in milk based media behave and grow completely different than the same bacteria in a yeast and sugar based media. And that is just a single strain. Co-fermentation’s get even crazier. I am not questioning your knowledge about waste water treatment plants, nor the exact nitrification cycle. We don’t understand more than 10% of what is going on in our own body’s microbiome, we essentially know nothing about a reef aquarium.

If you read the thread there are only a couple sticking points and they all relate to nitrifying bacteria not a biome. So what @Lasse is saying is directly applicable to the discussion

 

[brandon429]

https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/w...ltration-the-brs-wwc-system-ep7-brstv.487552/

Which argument does that video review closest favor

It's not spot on for this threads purpose, but I see hints of my side and not an iota of the other side so it looked good to grab.

 

[Lasse]

I am not sure how you can compare waste water treatment plants to a reef tank. One is freshwater and one is saltwater. One is full of human waste, prescription drugs, etc and the other is an ecosystem. We aren’t even talking about the same thing so it really doesn’t matter. There is no extensive research on how bacteria interact in a reef tank. I get you have study after study on waste water plants. That doesn’t apply to what goes on in a reef tank. Just like bacteria grown in milk based media behave and grow completely different than the same bacteria in a yeast and sugar based media. And that is just a single strain. Co-fermentation’s get even crazier. I am not questioning your knowledge about waste water treatment plants, nor the exact nitrification cycle. We don’t understand more than 10% of what is going on in our own body’s microbiome, we essentially know nothing about a reef aquarium.

Basically - same **** - different names.

Or do you mean that humans and fish pollute water with different type of biological waste?

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Gregg @ ADP]

This thread has my head spinning.

The temperature for optimum growth of nitrifying bacteria is between 77-86° F (25-30° C).
Growth rate is decreased by 50% at 64° F (18° C).
Growth rate is decreased by 75% at 46-50° F.
No activity will occur at 39° F (4° C)
Nitrifying bacteria will die at 32° F (0° C).
Nitrifying bacteria will die at 120° F (49° C)

90 is a bit high, Most all vendors i talked to when i started my study on bacteria recommended to keep tanks at 76-78F

Are those ranges specific to a certain genus?

Plenty of nitrification going on in cold water systems that rarely climb above 39F. There are also Arctic marine ecosystems where the water is often <32F

 

[Lousybreed]

If you read the thread there are only a couple sticking points and they all relate to nitrifying bacteria not a biome. So what @Lasse is saying is directly applicable to the discussion

To discount the entire biome is not a good choice. To think that it works the exact same way as in poop water, ditto. Find any research proving how the cycle works in a reef. Or live rock and how it functions. There are theories but nothing concrete. Acidophilus consumes ammonia, thus creating a completely different nitrogen cycle vs what we are talking about here. This is analogous to what people were saying about gut health in the 90’s....oh wait depression is connected to your nervous system that travels to your gut? We are reversing diabetes with probiotics? This would have been laughed at back on the 90’s. We are in clinical trials right now. I would suggest to read up on how inticate bacteria communities are. Again, not arguing the science behind the nitrate cycle, just saying it is way deeper than we realize and we don’t know exactly how it works.

 

[Lousybreed]

If you read the thread there are only a couple sticking points and they all relate to nitrifying bacteria not a biome. So what @Lasse is saying is directly applicable to the discussion

To discount the entire biome is not a good choice. To think that it works the exact same way, ditto. Find any research proving how the cycle works in a reef. Or live rock and how it functions. There are theories but nothing concrete. Acidophilus consumes ammonia, thus creating a completely different nitrogen cycle vs what we are talking about here. This is analogous to what people were saying about gut health in the 90’s....

 

[Gregg @ ADP]

To discount the entire biome is not a good choice. To think that it works the exact same way as in poop water, ditto. Find any research proving how the cycle works in a reef. Or live rock and how it functions. There are theories but nothing concrete. Acidophilus consumes ammonia, thus creating a completely different nitrogen cycle vs what we are talking about here. This is analogous to what people were saying about gut health in the 90’s....oh wait depression is connected to your nervous system that travels to your gut? We are reversing diabetes with probiotics? This would have been laughed at back on the 90’s. We are in clinical trials right now. I would suggest to read up on how inticate bacteria communities are. Again, not arguing the science behind the nitrate cycle, just saying it is way deeper than we realize and we don’t know exactly how it works.

Understanding the complexity of relationships and interactions within a system is one thing. There’s a ton we don’t yet understand.

However, that’s not what’s being debated here (I think. TBH, I can’t really tell).

The claims made ITT that I have an issue with are:
- NH3/4 not a limiting factor for nitrifying bacteria
- autotrophic and heterotrophic bacteria can convert and trade requisite energy sources in a continuous loop in perpetuity without additional inputs

It doesn’t work that way in any system (especially the 2nd one). That can easily be shown mathematically.

Of course we can start a system from a sterile empty aquarium with a couple of fish (or just NH3/4) and develop populations of auto and hetero bacteria and have those populations grow beyond what we would calculate as (K) based on [NH3]. But we’re dealing with aerobic nitrifying bacteria. If our system is to maintain an active population of aerobic bacteria, we need to replace oxygen used by bacteria. That would involve somehow breaking the meniscus of the water. Doing so would allow organic coumpounds and materials into the system that would decay and grow the bacterial populations beyond the initial [NH3].

But that would have to count as an import/input of energy. So, that doesn’t qualify as growing the nitrifying bacteria population without additional inputs.

Further, if we have only auto and hetero bacteria in the system, there will be some recycling of those compounds between the two groups...for a little while. But the loops get smaller and smaller over time, as we always lose some of the what is needed to continue this looping cycle (e.g. N to the atmosphere). Eventually, we run out of something we need to keep it going...unless we add more.

 

[MnFish1]

To discount the entire biome is not a good choice. To think that it works the exact same way as in poop water, ditto. Find any research proving how the cycle works in a reef. Or live rock and how it functions. There are theories but nothing concrete. Acidophilus consumes ammonia, thus creating a completely different nitrogen cycle vs what we are talking about here. This is analogous to what people were saying about gut health in the 90’s....oh wait depression is connected to your nervous system that travels to your gut? We are reversing diabetes with probiotics? This would have been laughed at back on the 90’s. We are in clinical trials right now. I would suggest to read up on how inticate bacteria communities are. Again, not arguing the science behind the nitrate cycle, just saying it is way deeper than we realize and we don’t know exactly how it works.

Tell you what you show proof that nitrifiers can use something other then ammonia - until then you are at the disadvantage. Diabetes is not being reversed with probiotics. Yes. other heterotrophs consume ammonia - were not talking about that. we're talking about nitrifying bacteria. Who is in clinical trials? Just to be clear.

 

[MnFish1]

https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/w...ltration-the-brs-wwc-system-ep7-brstv.487552/

Which argument does that video review closest favor

It's not spot on for this threads purpose, but I see hints of my side and not an iota of the other side so it looked good to grab.

Stop posting links and start posting your points No one knows what you're talking about. I'm sure you do. but no one else does. Anyone watching that video has no clue what you're referring to...

 

[Elegance Coral]

If this work - I doubt it did because I have seen such sets up - and they got problems in the start up. But if it works - it is because of the nitrification bacteria get dormant and form cysts or another inactive forms - that´s the reason why they can come through the air and through inorganic dust.

The point is that bacteria can continue to produce detritus for a substantial amount of time after meaningful nutritional input into the system has stopped. This is only possible through the recycling of nutrients that are already there. Yes, at some point, the energy fueling this process will diminish and the process will grind to a stop, if new resources are not obtained.

What I do not get is

1 - you say that the nitrification bacteria can survive and reproduce because other bacteria can form NH3/NH4 even if there is no input to the system.

For a period of time........

This "other" bacteria can´t be other than heterotrophic bacteria - normal decaying bacteria. It is the decaying of organic nitrogen that give the inorganic NH3/NH4.

Precisely.....

2 On the same time - you say that you will most of all get away from those bacteria because the consume oxygen (tip - nitrifying bacteria consume oxygen too) - you want as low organic load as possible.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what your trying to say here. I don't even see where I mentioned oxygen??????

But - what in whole world will give the nitrifying bacteria their NH3/NH4 if there is a very limited fauna of decaying bacteria?
That´s I do not get.

Neither do I. LOL
As the rate of decomposition decreases, the rate of NH3/NH4 production decreases, and the population of nitrifying bacteria decreases.
However, the microbial community will not die and/or go dormant, the instant nutritional input stops.

And there will not be any dead bacteria in a system - because dead bacteria is organic waste and will be eaten by other bacteria.

That is the most incorrect statement I've read in this thread. It's beyond misleading, and is simply wrong.

The fact that a food source is being consumed by an organism, is NOT evidence to show that the food source does not exist. In fact, the food source is typically much greater than the organisms that feed on it. There's more grass on the Serengeti than there are herbivores that feed on it. There's more herbivores than there are predators that feed on them. There's more leaf litter on the forest floor than there are organisms/decomposers that feed on it. Typically, as you move up the food chain, mass/quantities/populations, get smaller. Not larger. This fundamental truth about the way nature works will hold true virtually everywhere you look throughout nature. Including the microbial community. There will be more detritus/dead bacteria/organic waste, than there are detritivours, or organisms that feed on it. Organisms go extinct when the reverse is true. So, the presence of bacteria that feed on organic waste/dead bacteria, is evidence to show that there is an abundance of organic waste/dead bacteria fueling that population. Not the other way around.

Why just not admit that these bacteria can get dormant - they get inactive and when once established - they can wake up again.

At what point did I dispute this fact??? Can you quote the post where I denied this process exists???

Peace
EC

 

[Elegance Coral]

The temperature for optimum growth of nitrifying bacteria is between 77-86° F (25-30° C).
Growth rate is decreased by 50% at 64° F (18° C).
Growth rate is decreased by 75% at 46-50° F.
No activity will occur at 39° F (4° C)
Nitrifying bacteria will die at 32° F (0° C).
Nitrifying bacteria will die at 120° F (49° C)

90 is a bit high, Most all vendors i talked to when i started my study on bacteria recommended to keep tanks at 76-78F

https://www.climate-policy-watcher....of-temperature-on-the-nitrification-rate.html

 

[Lousybreed]

Understanding the complexity of relationships and interactions within a system is one thing. There’s a ton we don’t yet understand.

However, that’s not what’s being debated here (I think. TBH, I can’t really tell).

The claims made ITT that I have an issue with are:
- NH3/4 not a limiting factor for nitrifying bacteria
- autotrophic and heterotrophic bacteria can convert and trade requisite energy sources in a continuous loop in perpetuity without additional inputs

It doesn’t work that way in any system (especially the 2nd one). That can easily be shown mathematically.

Of course we can start a system from a sterile empty aquarium with a couple of fish (or just NH3/4) and develop populations of auto and hetero bacteria and have those populations grow beyond what we would calculate as (K) based on [NH3]. But we’re dealing with aerobic nitrifying bacteria. If our system is to maintain an active population of aerobic bacteria, we need to replace oxygen used by bacteria. That would involve somehow breaking the meniscus of the water. Doing so would allow organic coumpounds and materials into the system that would decay and grow the bacterial populations beyond the initial [NH3].

But that would have to count as an import/input of energy. So, that doesn’t qualify as growing the nitrifying bacteria population without additional inputs.

Further, if we have only auto and hetero bacteria in the system, there will be some recycling of those compounds between the two groups...for a little while. But the loops get smaller and smaller over time, as we always lose some of the what is needed to continue this looping cycle (e.g. N to the atmosphere). Eventually, we run out of something we need to keep it going...unless we add more.

Thank you for the clairity! I get it now!!!