Why do we work so much on nitrifying bacteria to just replace them at a later stage

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

May be wrong but autotroph need inorganic carbon to do they’re processing I don’t believe nitrifying bacteria need that. May be wrong

There's no shortage of inorganic carbon in a reef tank, unless folks let the alk get too low.

FWIW, when I've set up qt tanks for fish, I often added macroalgae as part of the ammonia removal capability. No need to focus on bacteria alone.

 

[sixty_reefer]

I don't think corals are suffering from ammonia. They may be suffering from not getting ammonia.

I do not think driving ammonia levels lower is a useful goal.

Some of the most hard to keep NPS in our hobby are thought to feed on bacteria, my thoughts were more in relation to the less nitrifying bacteria being available to them could be a factor on this corals thriving or just surviving. Theoretically if they were to feed mainly on nitrifying bacteria the chances of keeping them alive could reduce as heterotrophic bacteria starts to become the most abundant species.
It could explain why some can keep them alive longer than others imo not all tanks get the same conditions in my personal observations people that have a build up of P can keep them alive for longer.

 

[Garf]

Some of the most hard to keep NPS in our hobby are thought to feed on bacteria, my thoughts were more in relation to the less nitrifying bacteria being available to them could be a factor on this corals thriving or just surviving. Theoretically if they were to feed mainly on nitrifying bacteria the chances of keeping them alive could reduce as heterotrophic bacteria starts to become the most abundant species.
It could explain why some can keep them alive longer than others imo not all tanks get the same conditions in my personal observations people that have a build up of P can keep them alive for longer.

So are these NPS originating from carbon deprived waters?

 

[Dan_P]

Just a thought, we are always so keen in doing so much to get nitrifying heterotrophic bacteria to populate our systems at the beginning of our aquariums. Why do we just end up replacing it at a later stage by carbon consumers heterotrophs.

We should get @taricha to comment. He has an interest in the aquarium nitrogen economy and has spent some time in the lab tracking down where the nitrogen goes.

 

[Dan_P]

Not just in those cases imo as soon as we start adding live foods to a aquarium Carbon will start to be available, and heterotrophic bacteria could start to outcompete nitrifying bacteria, making heterotrophic bacteria the dominant species after a tank is cycled.

The food we add is carbon poor and while it certainly supplies organic carbon to the heterotrophs, it is converted to an excess amount of ammonia being generated which feeds the autotrophs. I am pretty sure the real pressure on the chemoautotrophs only comes when high levels of organic carbon are added in ethanol or acetic acid.

By the way, if aquaria weren’t overstocked, denitrification would likely be enough to export excess nitrogen and discussions about carbon dosing and algae scrubbers would disappear

 

[Nano sapiens]

Nitrifying bacteria are prevalent in a typical new reef aquarium because there are few corals and other animals to consume ammonia. Once an aquarium is mature and has a full complement of corals/other animals, the numbers of nitrifiers is often diminished (Aquabiomics has mentioned that low levels, or even undetectable levels of nitrifiers, is a frequent finding in mature reef aquaria).

Although I don't have numbers, I suspect that the majority of mature systems do not use or need carbon dosing to control nitrate. Many systems that aren't overstocked with fish/overfed hum along just fine with a stable reef norm nitrate level using a balanced input/output regime.

The people who are 'working hard to replace them' (nitrifying bacteria) just don't understand that once they are initially introduced into a reef system they don't need to be replaced under normal circumstances (the exception being some severe catastrophe that has severely upset the system microbiome).

 

[EeyoreIsMySpiritAnimal]

Some of the most hard to keep NPS in our hobby are thought to feed on bacteria, my thoughts were more in relation to the less nitrifying bacteria being available to them could be a factor on this corals thriving or just surviving. Theoretically if they were to feed mainly on nitrifying bacteria the chances of keeping them alive could reduce as heterotrophic bacteria starts to become the most abundant species.
It could explain why some can keep them alive longer than others imo not all tanks get the same conditions in my personal observations people that have a build up of P can keep them alive for longer.

Corals don't "feed on nitrifying bacteria"

 

[EeyoreIsMySpiritAnimal]

Just a thought, we are always so keen in doing so much to get nitrifying heterotrophic bacteria to populate our systems at the beginning of our aquariums. Why do we just end up replacing it at a later stage by carbon consumers heterotrophs.

I don't think anyone "works so much on nitrifying bacteria". We add it to new tanks if needed to create a healthy environment for fish and inverts. After that, barring a sudden increase in the bioload, most don't continue to use these products...

 

[sixty_reefer]

So are these NPS originating from carbon deprived waters?

No they tend to be found in bacteria rich environments according to some articles I’ve read and there a suspicion they will be consuming bacteria for energy and biomass although it hasn’t been proven. Just a theory many share online

 

[sixty_reefer]

The food we add is carbon poor and while it certainly supplies organic carbon to the heterotrophs, it is converted to an excess amount of ammonia being generated which feeds the autotrophs. I am pretty sure the real pressure on the chemoautotrophs only comes when high levels of organic carbon are added in ethanol or acetic acid.

By the way, if aquaria weren’t overstocked, denitrification would likely be enough to export excess nitrogen and discussions about carbon dosing and algae scrubbers would disappear

I agree in a way, our rock scapes tent to be not as dense as they used to be and the sand beds got way more thinner leaving less anoxic areas in modern aquariums to aid denitrification although I tend to believe our modern methods of feeding and dosing are much more rich in C that allows for heterotrophic bacteria to thrive, heterotrophic bacteria can utilise ammonia just as good or faster than nitrifying bacteria according some readings I’ve been doing of late.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Nitrifying bacteria are prevalent in a typical new reef aquarium because there are few corals and other animals to consume ammonia. Once an aquarium is mature and has a full complement of corals/other animals, the numbers of nitrifiers is often diminished (Aquabiomics has mentioned that low levels, or even undetectable levels of nitrifiers, is a frequent finding in mature reef aquaria).

Although I don't have numbers, I suspect that the majority of mature systems do not use or need carbon dosing to control nitrate. Many systems that aren't overstocked with fish/overfed hum along just fine with a stable reef norm nitrate level using a balanced input/output regime.

The people who are 'working hard to replace them' (nitrifying bacteria) just don't understand that once they are initially introduced into a reef system they don't need to be replaced under normal circumstances (the exception being some severe catastrophe that has severely upset the system microbiome).

Mind blowing, I just had a suspicion based on nutrient behaviour, the aquabiomics findings do support that this may happen naturally without we being aware as no bad effects that I know happens during the change.
You won’t happen to know if Eli wrote any articles on the subject.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Corals don't "feed on nitrifying bacteria"

We can’t say it for sure most of this corals nutrient needs are still unknown to us, I’m just pointing out that it could be one of the reasons some can keep them alive longer than others. If a reef aquaria will end up with heterotrophic instead of nitrifying after excess C is added maybe could be something to be looked at in the community

 

[sixty_reefer]

I don't think anyone "works so much on nitrifying bacteria". We add it to new tanks if needed to create a healthy environment for fish and inverts. After that, barring a sudden increase in the bioload, most don't continue to use these products...

I would disagree the most debated bacteria on this forums tend to be nitrifying not much is debated on heterotrophic bacteria and the effects after cycling a system.
in addition not much is known to the effects in our systems to what happens once we stop feeding they’re needs.

 

[sixty_reefer]

I do not know if we replace them or not. If we do, I don't see it as a concern. Lots of things evolve in reef tnaks.

if the question is whether one could get heterotrophs to do the job right from day 1 of cycling, then answer would be no unless you dosed organic carbon since there's little to no organic carbon present in many cases.

Nitrifying bacteria are prevalent in a typical new reef aquarium because there are few corals and other animals to consume ammonia. Once an aquarium is mature and has a full complement of corals/other animals, the numbers of nitrifiers is often diminished (Aquabiomics has mentioned that low levels, or even undetectable levels of nitrifiers, is a frequent finding in mature reef aquaria).

Although I don't have numbers, I suspect that the majority of mature systems do not use or need carbon dosing to control nitrate. Many systems that aren't overstocked with fish/overfed hum along just fine with a stable reef norm nitrate level using a balanced input/output regime.

The people who are 'working hard to replace them' (nitrifying bacteria) just don't understand that once they are initially introduced into a reef system they don't need to be replaced under normal circumstances (the exception being some severe catastrophe that has severely upset the system microbiome).

@Nano sapiens @Randy Holmes-Farley assuming that the theory is correct and in some systems heterotrophic bacteria becomes the dominant species wouldn’t that change the rules of balance that we now use? Having to take in consideration two different types of microbial needs.
If heterotrophic bacteria is the dominant species in a system that would mean that we would have to take in consideration the C N and P to keep a system stable, the limitations of one of the the nutrients could be very detrimental to the overall system, leaving more ammonia free to algaes for example.
In other hand a system were nitrifying bacteria would be dominant the rules of balance would be different I suppose, as C and P wouldn’t be as important to control ammonia.

 

[Garf]

Didn’t I see something on youtube about a fella growing some pink bacteria to feed NPS?

@Nano sapiens @Randy Holmes-Farley assuming that the theory is correct and in some systems heterotrophic bacteria becomes the dominant species wouldn’t that change the rules of balance that we now use? Having to take in consideration two different types of microbial needs.
If heterotrophic bacteria is the dominant species in a system that would mean that we would have to take in consideration the C N and P to keep a system stable, the limitations of one of the the nutrients could be very detrimental to the overall system, leaving more ammonia free to algaes for example.
In other hand a system were nitrifying bacteria would be dominant the rules of balance would be different I suppose, as C and P wouldn’t be as important to control ammonia.

you ever watched this;

 

[sixty_reefer]

Didn’t I see something on youtube about a fella growing some pink bacteria to feed NPS?

you ever watched this;

I’ve heard of PNS before, not seen that video sounds interesting from the first few minutes will have to finish watching it later with more time

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

@Nano sapiens @Randy Holmes-Farley assuming that the theory is correct and in some systems heterotrophic bacteria becomes the dominant species wouldn’t that change the rules of balance that we now use? Having to take in consideration two different types of microbial needs.
If heterotrophic bacteria is the dominant species in a system that would mean that we would have to take in consideration the C N and P to keep a system stable, the limitations of one of the the nutrients could be very detrimental to the overall system, leaving more ammonia free to algaes for example.
In other hand a system were nitrifying bacteria would be dominant the rules of balance would be different I suppose, as C and P wouldn’t be as important to control ammonia.

I do not think hetetotropic bacteria are (or even can be) the primary consumers of N and P in a typical reef tank. Photosynthetic organisms are.

IMO, worrying about dissolved organic carbon from a nutrient control standpoint is not a useful exercise.

 

[sixty_reefer]

I do not think hetetotropic bacteria are (or even can be) the primary consumers of N and P in a typical reef tank. Photosynthetic organisms are.

IMO, worrying about dissolved organic carbon from a nutrient control standpoint is not a useful exercise.

My thinking is more regarding ammonia, as if heterotrophic bacteria becomes the main strain of bacteria over nitrifying bacteria theoretically they will be the main strain at controlling ammonia in some more mature reef. Under circumstances where N or P was to be limited this could cause a increase of overall available ammonia as they wouldn’t have enough nutrients to carry on doing their functions. Not sure how it all really works, would the increase of ammonia get the nitrifying bacteria to grow again in a competition with other photosynthetic organisms?
I wasn’t considering their ability to use N and P only as that is a different discussion imo

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

My thinking is more regarding ammonia, as if heterotrophic bacteria becomes the main strain of bacteria over nitrifying bacteria theoretically they will be the main strain at controlling ammonia in some more mature reef. Under circumstances where N or P was to be limited this could cause a increase of overall available ammonia as they wouldn’t have enough nutrients to carry on doing their functions. Not sure how it all really works, would the increase of ammonia get the nitrifying bacteria to grow again in a competition with other photosynthetic organisms?
I wasn’t considering their ability to use N and P only as that is a different discussion imo

Most photosynthetic marine organisms are perfectly happy taking up ammonia, and many do it preferentially to nitrate if both are present.

IMO, it is likely that corals and algae are by far the biggest consumers of ammonia in reef tanks. IMO, that is why nitrifiers decline (if they do), not because heterotrophic bacteria beat them out (except possibly if you dose readily metabolized organic carbon like acetic acid or ethanol).

 

[taricha]

We should get @taricha to comment.

Thanks. Interesting thread with lots of interesting ideas, some of which get complicated to sort out.

A general data point in agreement with the thread premise, when I measured the nitrifying ability of sand - from my tank and from a LFS tank. I found that both had a low but measurable amount of traditional nitrification. A couple of tenths ppm ammonia/day - converted to NO2 and NO3 without Carbon additions. This is less than you get out of a bottle of biospira on day 1. And what you get out of a bottle of biospira on day 1 - triples or more in capacity over a ~9 day traditional ammonia feeding cycle.

So after a normal cycle - traditional nitrification of ammonia->NO2->NO3 is dominant, but over time our tanks (some of them at least - aquabiomics finds coral systems with high nitrifiers too article here) settle in to a stable system where the traditional nitrifiers occupy a small role, and uptake of ammonia by algae, corals, heterotrophs (fed by Carbon in food, C released from algae, or carbon dosing) are all also consumers of ammonia.

But the other thing that I found was that the sand - although it had low levels of nitrification, it was responsive to ammonia and sped up with repeated additions. This probably means that if I change my feeding to meatier foods, pull the algae out of my sump, cut my photoperiod in half, stop vinegar/vodka additions etc- then the sandbed nitrifiers would respond and increase in population and pick up the slack.

All this is to say that the status quo of building capacity of traditional nitrification through a bottle and cycling - then switching to fish food and never thinking about ammonia again actually isn't that bad of a system. After that, our tanks respond quite well (in terms of ammonia control) to whatever regime we impose on them after that.


(I personally would feel less good about a system I started with just heterotrophs. There's a failure mode there where if the food is too much or too meaty, then they run out of carbon and just sit there looking at excess ammonia until algae can pick up the slack. Statistics about how fast heterotrophs can grow and multiply are mostly irrelevant, since our systems stay Carbon limited.)