Why are all systems running out of bacteria?

[sixty_reefer]

That's interesting regarding the last point. Id be curious to find out why that happens, and what data is available on that.

I don’t think I’ve seen any data on that as there isn’t much interest in any bacteria past nitrifying bacteria.
Although there is many other strains of bacteria that aid our aquariums health that are slowly introduced by hitchhiking through food and coral fragment plugs. The availability and dominance on a system will be affected by the tank nutrient.
that’s why I personally believe that there isn’t much difference between live rock and dead rockeventually with the right nutrients they will all have very similar diversity at the microbe level.
The reason I believe we fail with both dead rock and live rock is because we don’t know how nutrition is important to balance a salt water aquarium and just blame everything on the dead rock.
i personally believe that most issues that we face today are mainly due to bad nutrition management and mostly connected to the abundance of the nutrient C.

 

[Forty-Two]

I don’t think I’ve seen any data on that as there isn’t much interest in any bacteria past nitrifying bacteria.
Although there is many other strains of bacteria that aid our aquariums health that are slowly introduced by hitchhiking through food and coral fragment plugs. The availability and dominance on a system will be affected by the tank nutrient.
that’s why I personally believe that there isn’t much difference between live rock and dead rockeventually with the right nutrients they will all have very similar diversity at the microbe level.
The reason I believe we fail with both dead rock and live rock is because we don’t know how nutrition is important to balance a salt water aquarium and just blame everything on the dead rock.
i personally believe that most issues that we face today are mainly due to bad nutrition management and mostly connected to the abundance of the nutrient C.

When you refer to nutrients can you clarify what you mean by that? And when you say that we are bad at nutrition management can you give me some examples?

Im actually mostly interested in Bacteria as I believe it greatly contributes to the health and longetivity of a reef system. Most of the choices I make for my reef are balanced around this thought process - of attempting to increase bio-diversity, even in some cases it requires that I not remove what most might identify as 'undesirables'. Whether Im being successful or not, I cannot say.

In my case I also at times (when Im on top of it) try to dose Aqua-Forest's Life Source. I have no evidence that this contains any bacteria but I suspect it does by the smell of it and the consistency. It contains water, and mud, and some tiny chips of coral. It was apparently extracted from the area around coral reefs in Fiji.

 

[sixty_reefer]

When you refer to nutrients can you clarify what you mean by that? And when you say that we are bad at nutrition management can you give me some examples?

Carbon nitrogen and phosphorus are the nutrients that autotroph and heterotrophs need to create biomass. We know the needs of nitrifying heterotrophic bacteria although many other heterotrophs needs organic carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus to be able to create biomass, the availability or limitation in that nutrient can influence the bacterial diversity in a tank

Im actually mostly interested in Bacteria as I believe it greatly contributes to the health and longetivity of a reef system. Most of the choices I make for my reef are balanced around this thought process - of attempting to increase bio-diversity, even in some cases it requires that I not remove what most might identify as 'undesirables'. Whether Im being successful or not, I cannot say.

In my case I also at times (when Im on top of it) try to dose Aqua-Forest's Life Source. I have no evidence that this contains any bacteria but I suspect it does by the smell of it and the consistency. It contains water, and mud, and some tiny chips of coral. It was apparently extracted from the area around coral reefs in Fiji.

 

[LiverockRocks]

I think there are a few contributing factors regarding your point that people cant fathom starting a new tank without it:
1) Live Rock is very difficult to get these days, and thus - its not a viable option, therefore people add Bacteria thinking its some sort of 'substitute' for Live Rock at some level (no matter how inadequate). Obviously you can achieve the results that most Bottle Bac provides by doing the "wait and rot" routine - by dropping in a fresh piece of fish or shrimp and waiting for it to break down

And more accurately:

2) Most people arent able to wait anymore. They have been conditioned through instant gratification to want now, and not have to wait. This doesnt bode well for many tank inhabitants, but it sure does bode well for the retailers/companies who sell the gear and treatments.

I think you meant to say, sustainably ocean harvested live rock is difficult to get these days compared to the ease of buying LFS cooked live rock or cooking your own bottle bac rock.

We are trying to chip away at that right now. Ocean harvested live rock is just a click away, there are a handful of underwater rock farms in Florida, TBS included. We are harvesting and shipping submerged across the lower 48 weekly.
Your right, the combination of instant gratification, lack of researching various options and the big bucks poured into marketing bottle bac have created this trend. Of course, our opinion is to replicate the natural. Don't we all seek a piece of the wild blue ocean inside a glass box?

 

[Forty-Two]

I think you meant to say, sustainably ocean harvested live rock is difficult to get these days compared to the ease of buying LFS cooked live rock or cooking your own bottle bac rock.

We are trying to chip away at that right now. Ocean harvested live rock is just a click away, there are a handful of underwater rock farms in Florida, TBS included. We are harvesting and shipping submerged across the lower 48 weekly.
Your right, the combination of instant gratification, lack of researching various options and the big bucks poured into marketing bottle bac have created this trend. Of course, our opinion is to replicate the natural. Don't we all seek a piece of the wild blue ocean inside a glass box?

Thanks for the post. Unfortunately I cannot get your product here, so Im stuck. Indonesian was once imported here in Israel for a time before the laws changed - I found it in many LFS's, but Ive cleaned them out of what they are willing to sell. Granted - it sat in their tanks for 5-10 years, which obviously is not the best situation. Ive contemplated starting my own private aquaculture experiment - but I dont have the time, and the laws here regarding water and shore usage are very strict.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Bacteria in bottle dies it does that why you have to keep adding it bacteria kills other bacteria in a bottle ,in the ocean everything is balance over a million years more stable to have ocean bacteria in a reef tank then in a bottle ,test it out start a new tank with only ocean water ,you will never have to add bacteria in it ever again It will be more stable because of balance in nature over millions of years To get that bacteria just right And not die off.

OK, so now you are proposing a hypothesis and suggesting I test it. Earlier you said there were studies that proved bacteria in a bottle led to unstable tanks.

Very different.

 

[Forty-Two]

Carbon nitrogen and phosphorus are the nutrients that autotroph and heterotrophs need to create biomass. We know the needs of nitrifying heterotrophic bacteria although many other heterotrophs needs organic carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus to be able to create biomass, the availability or limitation in that nutrient can influence the bacterial diversity in a tank

Some of this is remedied by those of us that dose live phyto (of which there are quite a few). I also dose frozen phyto as well to ensure I get the results of that decay (which Ive read can be beneficial for a lot of trace elements), in addition to the frozen food (Mysis and Brine). That should cover a good portion of it. Carbon - Im not so sure about. I know some people do dose CO2, some may come from calcium reactors (that's a guess, but I dont know a lot about calcium reactors).

I dont think any of these would be absent in levels that would cause a detriment in many reef tanks.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

A milliliter of sea water contains an average of 10 million viruses, 1 million bacteria, 1000 small protozoans, and algae (called protists). Costalwiki.org

How can this not be the most important aspect of the food web in our worlds oceans? How can we ignore this fact and think we can get all we need from non natural or lab grown cultures which have already selected the winners and loosers by the culture process. It seems to me both natural sea water and live rock may provide something important that we might be missing in our micro environments.

Just a thought...now back to the bottle lol.

It is certainly a possibility that many bacterial species are useful in a ref tank. Or maybe only 100 are needed can do the job perfectly well. The number of species present in the wild doesn't really say how many are needed, or even how many will survive in a reef tank.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Some of this is remedied by those of us that dose live phyto (of which there are quite a few). I also dose frozen phyto as well to ensure I get the results of that decay (which Ive read can be beneficial for a lot of trace elements), in addition to the frozen food (Mysis and Brine). That should cover a good portion of it. Carbon - Im not so sure about. I know some people do dose CO2, some may come from calcium reactors (that's a guess, but I dont know a lot about calcium reactors).

I dont think any of these would be absent in levels that would cause a detriment in many reef tanks.

Phytoplankton is good, although it takes longer to the nutrients c to break down imo.
not many tanks have the issue although it’s not uncommon to see it on occasion we’re someone could be trying to starve pest algae by depleting nitrates and phosphates.

 

[MnFish1]

Truly honest question, supposing that we are not adding bleach to our systems. What’s happening to the bacteria this days? Is it dying and if it’s dying how can we introduce new bacteria, if we can’t even sustain the ones we were supposed to have, it seems to be the new trend, add as many as you can. Is microbe diversity really achieved this way?
I always had in mind that diversity was achieved with a stable system and if it’s stable are we really loosing out on something?

As time goes on - depending on your tanks inhabitants, local conditions, etc - the bacteria that 'thrive' in those conditions will outcompete those that do not. This is normal. It is probably the same 'on the reef' - different populations of bacteria are present in different areas.

It is my OPINION - that bacterial diversity in a reef tank is over-rated - and probably not controllable by 'us'. There are numbers of studies that have shown/suggested that when you add a new bacterial to an old population one of 2 things will happen. 1. The established population will outcompete the new or 2. The new will outcompete the old. In the end you may have less diversity than before. Many people will consider this heresy - but its my feeling on your question

 

[MnFish1]

The gentleman that owns aquabiomics is local to me and he gave an excellent presentation on bacteria in aquariums. Bacteria diversity is extremely fascinating to me an extremely important. First things first, that bacteria in a bottle, it certainly works as intended, it will cycle your tank. BUT.. it doesn't last. IF you dumped bottles and bottles of it in, then tested a couple months later there would be none in your tank.

The reality is that like most things in the world, there is competition. It is not as if there is LESS bacteria in your tank after a while, it is just that the diversity goes down over time. Because.. competition. Leave a dandelion in your yard alone. Next year, more of them, next year even more, etc etc until all your left with is mostly dandelions. Why? They are more adept at utilizing moisture and highly successful seeds.

Same with bacteria. Eli is getting loads and loads of data and trends are certainly emerging. One of the most interesting is that the most dominant bacteria in the ocean is waterborne, it does not live on surfaces. But it is completely absent in many aquariums, even highly successful aquariums. So while we mimic the ocean for many things, it appears that it is not entirely necessary for aquariums. As a rule however, more diverse systems are more stable. This is a well known principal of all natural systems.

So, bacteria amounts are likely the same, they are just less diverse.

And interestingly enough - nearly everyone thinks you need a 'mature' tank to add certain animals, etc. Though as you say - bacterial diversity decreases over time.

 

[MnFish1]

Another conundrum - Many people that do ich management - swear by the use of large UV sterilizers. What do you think that does to the 'bacterial diversity'? (since the dose of UV needed to control parasites is a fair bit higher than that to kill most bacteria). Yet - these tanks are considered quite successful. Same with the use of oxydators, H2O2, etc - if its killing algae - its also decreasing bacteria, right?

 

[Perry]

My tank in 2007 using Zeovit:

My tank in 2016 using Aquaforest:

Both bacteria driven systems, widely used throughout Europe. To dismiss as snake oil, or to think these systems are for driving nutrients ultra low, are just misconceptions, mainly from those who have never tried them.
Cheers

 

[Jubo]

Another conundrum - Many people that do ich management - swear by the use of large UV sterilizers. What do you think that does to the 'bacterial diversity'? (since the dose of UV needed to control parasites is a fair bit higher than that to kill most bacteria). Yet - these tanks are considered quite successful. Same with the use of oxydators, H2O2, etc - if its killing algae - its also decreasing bacteria, right?

Bacteria is usually fixed to a surface so unless it becomes dislodged it will not be eradicated by a UV.

 

[MnFish1]

My tank in 2007 using Zeovit:

My tank in 2016 using Aquaforest:

Both bacteria driven systems, widely used throughout Europe. To dismiss as snake oil, or to think these systems are for driving nutrients ultra low, are just misconceptions, mainly from those who have never tried them.
Cheers

No one said anything was snake oil. The point is - my guess is that your system - if tested would not have a higher diversity than any other tank):. There are lots of people who do not use zeovit - who have similar tanks. BTW - I have no problem with low or ultra low nutrient tanks. I tend to believe that there is also a lot of issues with trying to blame N.P Ratios on various algae, Dinos - as well as many other things. Of course I'm as admitted a heretic. Very nice tank BTW

 

[MnFish1]

Bacteria is usually fixed to a surface so unless it becomes dislodged it will not be eradicated by a UV.

Yes - of course - yet another poster posted - a bit ago that there were x million viruses, bacteria, plankton in ocean water - as if we needed to mimic that. I will suggest to you - though - that - there is a limited surface area - on the surfaces of the tank. Adding more into the water is unlikely to do anything - that was the point

 

[Scott Campbell]

Yes - of course - yet another poster posted - a bit ago that there were x million viruses, bacteria, plankton in ocean water - as if we needed to mimic that. I will suggest to you - though - that - there is a limited surface area - on the surfaces of the tank. Adding more into the water is unlikely to do anything - that was the point

I believe you are correct that bacterial diversity is not necessarily the end goal. But the type of bacteria that does exist in a tank certainly matters.

Bacterial communities change as coral reefs become overgrown with algae. Instead of bacteria favoring coral growth the bacteria now favors algae growth. For many years I attempted to grow as many varieties of macroalage in my tank as possible. 15 years after I stopped doing that and instead began focusing on growing coral - my Aquabiomics test showed that my tank was still dominated by bacteria that favors algae growth. Many of us are often unable to grow certain "easy" corals. The bacterial composition of the tank is likely a factor in that. Corals compete with each other by trying to change the bacterial biome that exists around them. So whether there are a 100 or 10,000 different strains of bacteria in a tank - the bacterial communities that do exist and dominate are important.

In a new tank there are few contraints on bacterial communities. Which is why there are occasionally bacterial blooms. It is a wide open situation. So it is very likely a new tank can set in a place bacterial colonies that are not well suited to long term coral success. Especially if that new tank is experiencing a lot of algae growth. Resetting that bacterial composition with occasional infusions of NSW bacteria should allow the organisms in your tank an opportunity to re-shape the bacterial make-up of the tank in their favor. The overall diversity, as you note, will again decline - but the bacteria that ultimately remains should be more helpful to the organisms you have chosen to put in your tank.

So yes - diversity for the sake of diversity is probably not helpful. A small number of helpful bacterial strains may be more advantageous than a large number of unhelpful bacterial strains. But making certain bacterial strains available for the organisms in your tank that depend on those bacterial strains may be rather important. Even if you have to periodically replenish those strains. (That said - I don't think nitrogen processing bacteria ultimately matter much in a mature tank full of coral. And using UV sterilizers while also trying to add beneficial bacteria would obviously be counter-productive.)

 

[Nano sapiens]

For many years I attempted to grow as many varieties of macroalage in my tank as possible. 15 years after I stopped doing that and instead began focusing on growing coral - my Aquabiomics test showed that my tank was still dominated by bacteria that favors algae growth.

That is actually quite interesting. What this suggests is that there are still algal exudates (or similar substances) that are sustaining these types of bacteria. However, the total quantity (which doesn't show in an Aquabiomics test) one would expect to be much lower than it was 15+ years ago.

In a new tank there are few contraints on bacterial communities. Which is why there are occasionally bacterial blooms. It is a wide open situation. So it is very likely a new tank can set in a place bacterial colonies that are not well suited to long term coral success. Especially if that new tank is experiencing a lot of algae growth. Resetting that bacterial composition with occasional infusions of NSW bacteria should allow the organisms in your tank an opportunity to re-shape the bacterial make-up of the tank in their favor. The overall diversity, as you note, will again decline - but the bacteria that ultimately remains should be more helpful to the organisms you have chosen to put in your tank.

I can see where infusions of bacteria/archaea from live rock/live sand/mud could be beneficial to a newer reef setup that had a limited supply of bacteria when initially set up. However, I question whether there would be a noticeable benefit to the reef aquarium if it had been set up with a full complement of reef related microorganisms initially.

So yes - diversity for the sake of diversity is probably not helpful. A small number of helpful bacterial strains may be more advantageous than a large number of unhelpful bacterial strains.

I agree with this statement as it hasn't been proven that maximizing diversity is essential to having a thriving reef system (many systems testing moderate/low moderate scores are doing just fine). The whole idea of adding live rock, live sand, etc. is to add as many strains as possible so that important 'major players' can establish themselves to perform the vital functions.

But making certain bacterial strains available for the organisms in your tank that depend on those bacterial strains may be rather important. Even if you have to periodically replenish those strains. (That said - I don't think nitrogen processing bacteria ultimately matter much in a mature tank full of coral. And using UV sterilizers while also trying to add beneficial bacteria would obviously be counter-productive.)

For me, this cuts to the heart of the matter (statement in BOLD above). If a reef aquarium is initially set up with a diverse compliment of reef associated microbes and maintained in such a manner that selective pressure is not imposed on the bacterial community, then I do not see any reason to have to periodically replenish the microbiome.

I have such a system (14 years old) where skimmers, GAC, GFO, chemicals, etc. have not been used (just water changes and detritus removal) and my Aquabiomics report showed a higher than the 5 year old reef aquarium average microbial community. Food for thought...

And so it is my opinion that we aquarists are often unknowingly creating either a skewed and/or a reduced microbial community in our systems over time. This may, or may not, have a negative impact as it would be case specific. But it seems much more prudent to me to reduce/eliminate disruptions to the system/coral bactera/archaea as much as possible and greatly increase the chances of maintaining a stable, resilient and effective microbiome.

 

[Scott Campbell]

That is actually quite interesting. What this suggests is that there are still algal exudates (or similar substances) that are sustaining these types of bacteria. However, the total quantity (which doesn't show in an Aquabiomics test) one would expect to be much lower than it was 15+ years ago.



I can see where infusions of bacteria/archaea from live rock/live sand/mud could be beneficial to a newer reef setup that had a limited supply of bacteria when initially set up. However, I question whether there would be a noticeable benefit to the reef aquarium if it had been set up with a full complement of reef related microorganisms initially.



I agree with this statement as it hasn't been proven that maximizing diversity is essential to having a thriving reef system (many systems testing moderate/low moderate scores are doing just fine). The whole idea of adding live rock, live sand, etc. is to add as many strains as possible so that important 'major players' can establish themselves to perform the vital functions.



For me, this cuts to the heart of the matter (statement in BOLD above). If a reef aquarium is initially set up with a diverse compliment of reef associated microbes and maintained in such a manner that selective pressure is not imposed on the bacterial community, then I do not see any reason to have to periodically replenish the microbiome.

I have such a system (14 years old) where skimmers, GAC, GFO, chemicals, etc. have not been used (just water changes and detritus removal) and my Aquabiomics report showed a higher than the 5 year old reef aquarium average microbial community. Food for thought...

And so it is my opinion that we aquarists are often unknowingly creating either a skewed and/or a reduced microbial community in our systems over time. This may, or may not, have a negative impact as it would be case specific. But it seems much more prudent to me to reduce/eliminate disruptions to the system/coral bactera/archaea as much as possible and greatly increase the chances of maintaining a stable, resilient and effective microbiome.

Agree with all of this. You are absolutely correct to try to manage your tank in a manner that maintains a stable and effective microbiome. But the problem seems to be identifying the "selective pressures" possibly eliminating bacterial strains important to one's particular tank. Maybe it is skimming. Maybe it is GFO. Maybe I let molybdenum levels hit zero because I don't know anything about molybdenum and key bacteria might really need molybdenum. Maybe my tank has certain non-beneficial bacterial strains that over time out compete the beneficial strains regardless of what I do. I have no clue. So I personally don't know what to do to mitigate the likelihood of a "reduced microbial community". Which would be frustrating except for the fact that addressing the situation after it occurs is rather simple - just toss a bunch of live sand in the refugium every few years.

I doubt then I will ever know how to prevent the problem. Or for that matter even identify if I have a problem. But occasionally re-setting the bacterial biome slightly with NSW seems straightforward and effective and not especially expensive or troublesome.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

And so it is my opinion that we aquarists are often unknowingly creating either a skewed and/or a reduced microbial community in our systems over time. This may, or may not, have a negative impact as it would be case specific. But it seems much more prudent to me to reduce/eliminate disruptions to the system/coral bactera/archaea as much as possible and greatly increase the chances of maintaining a stable, resilient and effective microbiome.

I certainly agree with the first part, but an alternative view on the last sentence is

Why not let the tank bacteria that thrive best in a given tank do their job in the reef tank, rather than modifying the tank husbandry in a way that may or may not be beneficial but is presumably undesirable for other reasons or the aquarist wouldn't have chosen it in the first place?