why is so little known by hobbyist about 80+ strains of bacteria

[Rmckoy]

I would say this is true for most, but CaribSea has 2 different product lines.

Arag-Alive which is the rinsed, dried, and then packed with nitrifying bacteria (freshwater variety bacteria so not that beneficial)

and

OceanDirect which is straight from the ocean floor and is legitimate live sand, never rinsed, nothing added, nothing taken away, not even sifted I don't believe.

Edit: Here's a video about it by BRS

Years and years . This is how it’s been done .
open the bag , and add to dt .

it will cloud a little but not last long .
What changed to strictly encourage rinsing prior to using ?

 

[MnFish1]

Try defining it. List the measurable characteristics of a “successful reef tank”.

I stress “measurable” because there are so many not so useful notions and terms that hobbyists associate with “successful”. I will start the list.

1. 50-75% of the species specific growth rate found in the wild
2.
3.
4.
5.

Your turn.

My guess is that the point you're making is that it's an impossible question?

 

[Chrisv.]

What I've done for 5 years is trade chunks of rock and rubble with anyone and everyone. Frag swaps, personal sales at someone's house, anywhere I see a stable tank I ask to buy a couple small pieces. Takes time but it's super fun to think how many hundreds of tanks I've gotten rocks from.

Speaking of.. who wants to trade a couple pieces of rubble?

Gosh. I hope you had a quantitative assessment to determine which tanks were thriving.

 

[MnFish1]

Gosh. I hope you had a quantitative assessment to determine which tanks were thriving.

If I started a post with 'I talked to a scientist who said that rimless aquaria do better than those with rims'. Would you question that? I would. (of course its ludicrous) - But IMHO - there is science that suggests that its extremely difficult to add diversity to a closed system (that persists). There are a lot of excellent tanks that do not add 'extra bacteria' or mud or anything else. So - what is wrong with questioning the OP's original comment? Of course there is no quantitative assessment of 'thriving', 'successful' or any of the other words. But - on the same side - isn't the real question - 'can we increase diversity by adding bacteria - or ocean sand or mud or whatever'. I vote 'no' - in the long term. I haven't seen any evidence that thats the case presented?

 

[Dan_P]

My guess is that the point you're making is that it's an impossible question?

Yes. I think your replies are also getting at the nub of the issue here.

Are bacteria an important ingredient for healthy aquaria (yes)? Does an aquarium need a wide variety of bacteria (Probably yes, but how many different species? Which species? Are the species of bacteria linked to coral type?)? Do we understand the subject of bacterial diversity in aquaria (AquaBiomics has provided us interesting insights, but this is still frontier science. We are far from running a test like an ICP and judging whether the result is good or bad)?

As for the notion of sharpening up our definition of what good looks like, when you cannot accurately define an endpoint or goal , it is very difficult to reach it. I was not being flippant asking about a definition for a “successful reef aquarium”. Where does “success” lie on the spectrum of coral surviving to coral reproducing in an aquarium?

 

[Chrisv.]

If I started a post with 'I talked to a scientist who said that rimless aquaria do better than those with rims'. Would you question that? I would. (of course its ludicrous) - But IMHO - there is science that suggests that its extremely difficult to add diversity to a closed system (that persists). There are a lot of excellent tanks that do not add 'extra bacteria' or mud or anything else. So - what is wrong with questioning the OP's original comment? Of course there is no quantitative assessment of 'thriving', 'successful' or any of the other words. But - on the same side - isn't the real question - 'can we increase diversity by adding bacteria - or ocean sand or mud or whatever'. I vote 'no' - in the long term. I haven't seen any evidence that thats the case presented?

I think you may misunderstand my jibe. My comment was made with respect to the earlier issued challenge that we need to be able to provide quantitative definitions of success in order to achieve it. I think that's idiotic.

My experience with this hobby (since 1997) is that you can provide the best conditions conducive to success, but at the end nature takes over a bit. I agree that micromanaging the biodiversity of a tanks microbiome may be a fleeting goal. Still probably a worthy goal.

I'm simply saying that we don't need a set of measurements to say a tank is successful, given that success is achieved many ways. I think anyone who has done this for more than 6 months can look at a thriving tank and say that it's thriving.

I am all for measurements. I've been a scientist for almost as long as I've been keeping reef tanks. But my suggestion that I hoped there was a quantitative measurement of success was made to specifically make fun of the poster who left a blank numbered list.

 

[MnFish1]

I think you may misunderstand my jibe. My comment was made with respect to the earlier issued challenge that we need to be able to provide quantitative definitions of success in order to achieve it. I think that's idiotic.

My experience with this hobby (since 1997) is that you can provide the best conditions conducive to success, but at the end nature takes over a bit. I agree that micromanaging the biodiversity of a tanks microbiome may be a fleeting goal. Still probably a worthy goal.

I'm simply saying that we don't need a set of measurements to say a tank is successful, given that success is achieved many ways. I think anyone who has done this for more than 6 months can look at a thriving tank and say that it's thriving.

I am all for measurements. I've been a scientist for almost as long as I've been keeping reef tanks. But my suggestion that I hoped there was a quantitative measurement of success was made to specifically make fun of the poster who left a blank numbered list.

As a scientist also, I would ask 'why' is it a 'probably' worthy goal to increase the biodiversity of the microbiome? I was curious as to whether that was your feeling? Or whether you had some information that suggested its true (except products that are trying to sell increased diversity?).

As to the questions mentioned by @Dan_P - I disagree - the OP stated that a 'marine biochemist' talked about 'successful' reef tanks requiring x strains of bacteria (paraphrased). Thus - what that word 'means' is important IMHO.

If by 'successful' the discussion is revolving around 'successful in maintaining microbial diversity' - thats a different question. By the way - Dan is IMHO a valuable member of this community (who does a lot of experiments to prove/disprove common knowledge) - so I'm not sure a 'jibe' against him is called for since he was probably trying to assess a way to determine whether what the OP said was credible - though I dont want to speak for him

 

[Arego]

Gosh. I hope you had a quantitative assessment to determine which tanks were thriving.

Nothing, threw them straight in.

 

[Chrisv.]

Nothing, threw them straight in.

As you should have. Reefing isn't as quantitative as plenty of people seem to pretend that it is. Maybe someday it will be. As for now, you used your eyes and your knowledge to determine if you wanted to swap microbes with a tank, and that's 100% reasonable.

 

[Chrisv.]

As a scientist also, I would ask 'why' is it a 'probably' worthy goal to increase the biodiversity of the microbiome? I was curious as to whether that was your feeling? Or whether you had some information that suggested its true (except products that are trying to sell increased diversity?).

As to the questions mentioned by @Dan_P - I disagree - the OP stated that a 'marine biochemist' talked about 'successful' reef tanks requiring x strains of bacteria (paraphrased). Thus - what that word 'means' is important IMHO.

If by 'successful' the discussion is revolving around 'successful in maintaining microbial diversity' - thats a different question. By the way - Dan is IMHO a valuable member of this community (who does a lot of experiments to prove/disprove common knowledge) - so I'm not sure a 'jibe' against him is called for since he was probably trying to assess a way to determine whether what the OP said was credible - though I dont want to speak for him

Microbes exist in communities that partner together in microbial ecosystems. That isn't my opinion. Is "80 strains" some magic number to shoot for? Probably not. But increased diversity probably gives you the best chance of achieving community level interactions between microbes.

Have I quantified this? Of course not. But look at the differences between the first year of a live rock tank and the first year of a dry rock tank with bottled bacteria. Does the bottled bacteria do a good job of metabolizing ammonia to nitrates? Yep! But we never needed the term "ugly phase" before bulk reef and Marco rock started pushing the whole "bottled bacteria with dry rock" marketing agenda. Back when live rock was basically the only starting point, tanks didn't look like hell for the first year. Could it be increased microbial diversity on real rock? I don't have data to back it up, but that's my guess.

 

[MnFish1]

Microbes exist in communities that partner together in microbial ecosystems. That isn't my opinion. Is "80 strains" some magic number to shoot for? Probably not. But increased diversity probably gives you the best chance of achieving community level interactions between microbes.

Have I quantified this? Of course not. But look at the differences between the first year of a live rock tank and the first year of a dry rock tank with bottled bacteria. Does the bottled bacteria do a good job of metabolizing ammonia to nitrates? Yep! But we never needed the term "ugly phase" before bulk reef and Marco rock started pushing the whole "bottled bacteria with dry rock" marketing agenda. Back when live rock was basically the only starting point, tanks didn't look like hell for the first year. Could it be increased microbial diversity on real rock? I don't have data to back it up, but that's my guess.

Here is a theory for you. If you put a lot of 'dead' real estate (dry rock) - in a tank - SOMETHING fast growing is going to grow. If on the other hand - you put coral, etc - to cover the dry rock - there will be no 'uglies'. IME. My tank is started with Dry rock - and lots of coral. So - perhaps the coral added the microbial diversity.

BUT - my main question related to - not starting up a tank - but instead - adding "biodiversity" to an established tank. Which - I believe - tends to lose diversity as compared to gain - with maturity.

 

[HomebroodExotics]

Zeovit?

 

[Chrisv.]

Here is a theory for you. If you put a lot of 'dead' real estate (dry rock) - in a tank - SOMETHING fast growing is going to grow. If on the other hand - you put coral, etc - to cover the dry rock - there will be no 'uglies'. IME. My tank is started with Dry rock - and lots of coral. So - perhaps the coral added the microbial diversity.

100% agree.

BUT - my main question related to - not starting up a tank - but instead - adding "biodiversity" to an established tank. Which - I believe - tends to lose diversity as compared to gain - with maturity.

I believe that aquabiomics did observe older tanks headed towards decreased microbial diversity, and I have heard people speculate that this may be the basis of "old tank syndrome" that some people experience after many years. It's hard to say how easy it would be to add back diversity to a tank that is populated with thriving non diverse bacterial communities...but almost certainly harder than in a new tank. We have the tools to ask these questions, and hopefully aquabiomics or a similar company will be able to speak to this at some point, or better yet, to develop methods to jump start divers in established tanks if they see that this is relevant.

If lack of diversity in old tanks does not matter, that's fine too. I think we just don't know what the implications are at this point. As you posted, it's likely a different scenario than in a new tank with a microbial primary succession.

 

[Nano sapiens]

Here is a theory for you. If you put a lot of 'dead' real estate (dry rock) - in a tank - SOMETHING fast growing is going to grow. If on the other hand - you put coral, etc - to cover the dry rock - there will be no 'uglies'. IME. My tank is started with Dry rock - and lots of coral. So - perhaps the coral added the microbial diversity.

BUT - my main question related to - not starting up a tank - but instead - adding "biodiversity" to an established tank. Which - I believe - tends to lose diversity as compared to gain - with maturity.

While the coral undoubtedly consumed some of the available system nutrients and bacterial diversity was surely added, I would suggest that the addition of periphyton (that would have been present on the coral bases and spread rapidly to the surrounding rock) would have helped to establish system stability.

Periphyton's role in promoting system stability is greatly underappreciated in this hobby, IMHO.

 

[Chrisv.]

While the coral undoubtedly consumed some of the available system nutrients and bacterial diversity was surely added, I would suggest that the addition of periphyton (that would have been present on the coral bases and spread rapidly to the surrounding rock) helped greatly to establish system stability.

Hard agree. The nub of rock the coral was attached to probably brought a lot of good guys to the party.

Periphyton's role in promoting system stability is greatly underappreciated in this hobby, IMHO.

 

[JNalley]

Years and years . This is how it’s been done .
open the bag , and add to dt .

it will cloud a little but not last long .
What changed to strictly encourage rinsing prior to using ?

I have no idea, I don't advocate rinsing of sand, and I especially wouldn't rinse OceanDirect Live sand, put it in tank and go.

 

[Rmckoy]

I have no idea, I don't advocate rinsing of sand, and I especially wouldn't rinse OceanDirect Live sand, put it in tank and go.

I agree 100%

 

[brandon429]

They listened to the advice not to pre rinse:

Add new sand without rinse​

Hi guy, I just add new special grade sand without rinse. I added slowly 1/3 bag per day, but didn’t rinse. My tank seem cloudy, but I have skimmer and 2 filter socks. My tank has sps, lps and 9 fishes. Should I expect a mini cycle. I concern my coral and fish die tomorrow

www.reef2reef.com
https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/so-i-didnt-rinse.592624/
https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/sandbed-stirred-up.544852/#post-5723606

https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/very-cloudy-water-after-sand-and-rock.559386/#post-5735864
https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/question-about-vacuuming-sand-bed.616059/ https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/new-tank-milky-cloudy.616519/
Ocean direct live sand from CaribSea
Has anyone used ocean direct sand and what are your thoughts? I used it in my nano and noticed that any sand movement clouds the area pretty quickly. Any fixes for this or is it just part of having this sand

10 days, still won't settle and clouds fully
https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/cloudy-tank.576835/

https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/bummer-could-use-some-help.558301/



the reason we pre rinse sand is twofold:

1. to avoid that, for everyone
2. because if you test unrinsed sand vs rinse sand for any control parameter you want, you can’t measure a test difference between the two

this specifically includes filter bacteria, post rinse sand doesn’t fail a test that no rinse bag sand would pass, so why keep the chalk? Groupthink is the only reason, they don’t have to clean those messes above.

 

[JNalley]

They listened to the same advice:

Add new sand without rinse​

Hi guy, I just add new special grade sand without rinse. I added slowly 1/3 bag per day, but didn’t rinse. My tank seem cloudy, but I have skimmer and 2 filter socks. My tank has sps, lps and 9 fishes. Should I expect a mini cycle. I concern my coral and fish die tomorrow

www.reef2reef.com
https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/so-i-didnt-rinse.592624/
https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/sandbed-stirred-up.544852/#post-5723606

https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/very-cloudy-water-after-sand-and-rock.559386/#post-5735864
https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/question-about-vacuuming-sand-bed.616059/ https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/new-tank-milky-cloudy.616519/
Ocean direct live sand from CaribSea
Has anyone used ocean direct sand and what are your thoughts? I used it in my nano and noticed that any sand movement clouds the area pretty quickly. Any fixes for this or is it just part of having this sand

10 days, still won't settle and clouds fully
https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/cloudy-tank.576835/

https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/bummer-could-use-some-help.558301/



the reason we pre rinse sand is twofold:

1. to avoid that, for everyone
2. because if you test unrinsed sand vs rinse sand for any control parameter you want, you can’t measure a test difference between the two

this specifically includes filter bacteria, post rinse sand doesn’t fail a test that no rinse bag sand would pass, so why keep the chalk? Groupthink is the only reason, they don’t have to clean those messes above.

Not sure what they're doing... I've used the OceanDirect sand on plenty of builds, a cloudy tank is done in under 24 hours, only once have I seen 36 hours, and any sand stirring it's gone in less than12 hours... I'd be really keen to know what they're doing, what they're running that's causing such extended periods of cloudiness.

 

[Sean_B]

Are bacteria an important ingredient for healthy aquaria (yes)? Does an aquarium need a wide variety of bacteria (Probably yes, but how many different species? Which species? Are the species of bacteria linked to coral type?)? Do we understand the subject of bacterial diversity in aquaria (AquaBiomics has provided us interesting insights, but this is still frontier science.

"mother nature" has been testing and advancing this for 3 Billion years? controlling what goes into aquariums seems to be somewhat out of control?