Bacteria in bottle, busting myth, Seneye style.

[Dr. Reef]

Thanks for the input. My Ammonia is still close to 0 but the Nitrites went back up to 0.5. Very strange that Nitrites started spiking this far from when the bacteria was added. I am starting to think they some of the allegations that these bottled bac mostly have bacteria that consume Ammonia and not Nitrite is partially true.

They do have both types of bacteria but unfortunately the ammonia converting bacteria multiply and grow faster than bacteria converting Nitrites.
Like stated above Nitrites are not dangerous in saltwater and infact i dont even bother with nitrites and as oon as ammonia is 0 i stock tank (nitrites normally 1-5ppm) with no ill effects.

 

[Lasse]

It's a 2 steps reaction. The ammonia oxidises is easy to start. The nitrite oxidises is a little bit more tricky. Remember - when you feed your fishes they will process the feed an leave back the N they do not need in the form of ammonia. This will instantly be oxidised into NO2 by the ammonia oxidises if the process have started once. If the population of nitrite oxidisers of some reason is not large enough you will ackumulate NO2 in the water. You need to take down the ammonia production (read - feed lesser or not) for a while leaving the nitrite oxidisers to adapt themselves for a higher load.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[RollTideReefer]

It's a 2 steps reaction. The ammonia oxidises is easy to start. The nitrite oxidises is a little bit more tricky. Remember - when you feed your fishes they will process the feed an leave back the N they do not need in the form of ammonia. This will instantly be oxidised into NO2 by the ammonia oxidises if the process have started once. If the population of nitrite oxidisers of some reason is not large enough you will ackumulate NO2 in the water. You need to take down the ammonia production (read - feed lesser or not) for a while leaving the nitrite oxidisers to adapt themselves for a higher load.

Sincerely Lasse

Got it. I have cut back feeding the fishies but let me tell you, the shrimp are way more demanding than my clowns. If they aren't fed they follow me around the tank demanding food lol.

 

[MnFish1]

The present increased CO2 level lowers the pH and CO2 is driven out when opening the bag. Some even use an air stone to supply oxygen which will drive out the CO2 very fast. The dripping method is used to prevent chock but the pH chock can not be prevented when the bag is opened and moved around and long term NH3 poisoning may start here. A bag that is under pressure and suddenly opened, the pressure reduction will suck out dissolved gasses out of the water creating a shock. A fish that has been a long time in the bag may already have accumulated some NH4 and body pH may be low. Such a fish will only survive the following days or week if the pH transition is slow.

Isn't it mostly - that the longer the transit time - the lower the pH - and at lower pH - there is less NH3 - and more (less toxic) NH4

How are you accounting for differing numbers of viable cells in each different bacterial preparation?

Before saying Fritz is best because it dropped ammonia in 28 hours, it’s possible it has triple/quadruple the viable bacterial dose of the other bottles used.

Just because it’s the fastest, Doesn’t mean it has a better blend of better bacteria- it might have a less optimal cell type, just a lot more of them.

The answer - I think - is that Fritz is designed to be added to water - and fish can be added shortly thereafter. Of course they could have more bacteria of course. But Fritz decided to put xxxx bacteria in - and product a and b decided (perhaps) to put different or lower amounts of bacteria - the study I thought was to compare the effectiveness of products - and the speed at which they can help a cycle. In other words - the question at the start - that was to be answered was not 'why do these products work' - it was 'do these products work - when directions are followed'.

 

[MnFish1]

@Dr. Reef has been thoroughly testing, and posting results that could benefit all of us.

I'm not sure I would agree on that and I'll explain why. In his tests he pits one product vs another which is fine but the Fritz turbostart will almost always win no matter what other product it comes up against. The reason from what I gather is due to the temperature maintained during shipping (refrigerated) allows for much of the bacteria that breaks down nitrite into nitrate or ammonia to nitrite (Forgot which one) is kept alive and does not need the time required to reproduce into a colony large enough to become effective. I imagine that is why they call it "Turbo Start". They will all work the same within a few days or a week once that certain bacteria has populated enough. Although I'm new to the hobby, my limited anecdotal experience aligns with a bit of reading of the papers about nitrifying bacteria.

What would prove beneficial is to know what conditions are optimal and which impede the cycle itself. jmo.
[/QUOTE]
One problem is that no one knows 'what bacteria are in the products'. Although everyone talks about nitr......... bacteria - I.e. any bacteria starting with nitro - there is lots evidence that the major bacteria that provide ammonia/nitrite/nitrate reduction in nature are completely different types. So - who knows whats in the bottle. The other thing is - that bacteria that can survive room temp - and can use ammonia - do also work - but they require an organic carbon source. That at least (I think) was what the first study showed

 

[User]

Isn't it mostly - that the longer the transit time - the lower the pH - and at lower pH - there is less NH3 - and more (less toxic) NH4


The answer - I think - is that Fritz is designed to be added to water - and fish can be added shortly thereafter. Of course they could have more bacteria of course. But Fritz decided to put xxxx bacteria in - and product a and b decided (perhaps) to put different or lower amounts of bacteria - the study I thought was to compare the effectiveness of products - and the speed at which they can help a cycle. In other words - the question at the start - that was to be answered was not 'why do these products work' - it was 'do these products work - when directions are followed'.

Thanks for responding to a 2 year old post.

now- what’s this thread about again? Talk about beat an old horse

 

[MnFish1]

Thanks for responding to a 2 year old post.

now- what’s this thread about again? Talk about beat an old horse

SOrry - I got an alert - that it was a new post - and I didnt pay attention to the date.

 

[Maximus]

Hey guys, I just added some of the refrigerated Fritz Turbo Start 900 to my tank. Is the liquid supposed to be pinkish/purplish in color? Thanks.

 

[MnFish1]

Hey guys, I just added some of the refrigerated Fritz Turbo Start 900 to my tank. Is the liquid supposed to be pinkish/purplish in color? Thanks.

From the Fritz Website:

The smell may range from none to a very strong pungent odor and the color from a rosy red to a grayish black. We have seen the odor and color ranges mentioned above to be equally effective. The true test of the product effectiveness is its ability to convert ammonia and/or nitrite. If the product has not expired and has been handled properly, it will be effective in the aquarium.

 

[Maximus]

Thanks so much, MnFish1! Appreciate the info.

 

[Dr. Reef]

When its fresh its pinkish red. as it starts to die it will turn darker and darker till its almost black, just like transmission fluid nice and pink when new and dark and grey/black when its burnt.

 

[BroccoliFarmer]

Bump

 

[Maximus]

When its fresh its pinkish red. as it starts to die it will turn darker and darker till its almost black, just like transmission fluid nice and pink when new and dark and grey/black when its burnt.

Ahh, great to know! It sounds like my bottle is fresh!

 

[Belgian Anthias]

A lot of money has been spent on what is called " live rock" with the intention of importing real marine diversity. Sometimes having corals on them. Aren't corals the best "live rock" available? They then add strange bacteria from a bottle to compete with what was introduced with the expensive stones and coral holobionts,

I still don't understand the point of it.

 

[brandon429]

no

and you know we're doing this to try and determine fastest possible bioload carry dates for new tanks. this hasn't been a sludge digesting investigation or anything like that. you can easily see this thread stands out from any other bottle bac thread written because he uses 100% water changes to measure implantation times for common strains of bottle bac, an analysis of actual transition rates from dosed into implantation. the creativity was stellar, you were saying

 

[brandon429]

but I think I see you are meaning there's a better benefit for using that live rock vs the bare carry ability of bottle bac, agreed then.

but for those in a big rush or $ restricted the study serves that market very well.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

In a new set up aquarium Biological activity depends on basic nutrients available in the water. The first cycle will use light for importing organic carbon using up all nutrients present in the salt mix. Most salt mixes contain very little nutrients, the import of organic carbon is very limited.
After the first cycle inorganic nutrients are depleted, produced bioload will die and be reminerelized by heterotrophic bacteria using the imported carbon. Bacterial growth is limited to what is available. When adding bacteria, where they will find the food source needed? Is it in the bottle? Dormant bacteria in a bottle need a trigger to become active ( nutrients) , and then they have to compete with already active bacteria for the same nutrients.
To condition the tank, to install the carrying capacity needed to support one fish, a lot more nutrients are needed, with or without bacteria in a bottle.

The other way is not conditioning the tank for what is coming, introduce the fish, feed it high protein food and dose organic carbon. This way the first fish can be introduced within a week, with or without bacteria from a bottle. The fish and it's transport water will bring in the diversity needed.

High bacterial growth rates are based on the availability of ammonia, the nitrogen source, and the availability of organic carbon for the energy production.

Growth rates not only depend on the nitrogen source used and the ability to retrieve carbon but also on the availability of all other essential nutrients.

Testing bacterial growth, what is tested? Strains of bacteria present in the bottle able to grow in the tank or growth using the nutrients released adding the content of the bottle?
An example: If PHA bacteria are added, dead ore alive, they will provide a lot of organic carbon as they are able to store a huge amount of organic carbon reserves. The result will be high bacterial activity reminerelizing PHA. (PHA loaded bacteria are cultivated commercially and used to make bio-polymers of which quality bio-pellets are made. Most types of bacteria, archaea and cyanos can be forced to produce PHAs to a greater or lesser extent, up to 70% of the dry matter and more. Using Acinetobacter sp. a lot of PHA , organic carbon, can be provided. ref: MB biologische polymeren)

What is in the bottle?

 

[brandon429]

Belgian Anthias


all cycling charts from books in the 1950s to todays websites are an x/y axis of wait times, feed and inoculation and light provision isn’t included in the charting. Because they source naturally


I have personally upcycled fifty or so freshwater systems with wait time only, no lights, opposite of what you’re saying. bottle Bac and protein input and degrees of light provided are not part of the wait, which earns a full cycle in 30 day for common freshwater setups. The bacteria come from water prep where no boiling was originated, and from room contaminations that we all have on our baseboards and ceiling fan tops right now, it’s a proven undebatable fact at least for freshwater systems. Gnats will land in the tank, dander, mites etc, all degrade into trace feed and the makeup is the wait time which also compounds these sources into significance


that being said, I have seen just one example clearly proven that marine cycling can work the same way, but the time wait must be tripled and quadrupled, to be determined. It’s on page 97 onward of Dr. Reefs other bottle bac thread. We need more examples, more tests so we can see if that was a fluke or not.

for freshwater the deal is done, it’s been available as a chart for eighty years or more. But for marine? It’s fun to be on that cutting edge of discovery, someone out there get a bucket of saltwater, stacked in Marco rocks, heated and circulated and open topped and kept topped off until April, and let us know what you find. Test it for light oxidation proofing, half a ppm movement in 24 hours at the end of a 3 or 4 month wait. 2 ppm movement doesn’t apply, it’s not a study of concentrated bottled dosers it’s a study of natural and free controls and half a ppm overnite moved will run any common starting bioload in a diluted common marine tank setup.


entire articles on reef tank microbiology can be written off that worlds easiest cycling experiment

bottle bac simply reduces the wait time we’d get free of charge if we opted for free unassisted cycling, and it works in marine setups too that’s the bet. If they’re open topped and exposed to home contaminants. Anyone here reading can prove this is a freshwater setup and be ready for fish carry by February 22nd

 

[Belgian Anthias]

Belgian Anthias




bottle bac simply reduces the wait time we’d get free of charge if we opted for free unassisted cycling, and it works in marine setups too that’s the bet. If they’re open topped and exposed to home contaminants. Anyone here reading can prove this is a freshwater setup and be ready for fish carry by February 22nd

Conditioning the system using bio-filters ( biofilm based) the conditioning time will depend on the available nutrients and the amount of ammonia already present. High ammonia availability will inhibit and or slow down bacterial growth and the formation of a balanced biofilm. The fact that adding live cultures accelerates everything depends on many factors. The time needed for bacteria to form a nitrifying biofilm depends on the situation. To condition a system, to install the carying capacity for reducing 1ppm ammonia daily , will always take about 3 weeks.

Much less nitric acid is produced in seawater (pH8), which means that there is less inhibition for the formation of a biofilm. In any case, it takes time for the biofilm-forming bacteria to build the links to communicate with each other. And to be able to do that, all the bacteria needed for the collaboration must be present in the necessary numbers, and they can not all be supplied in a sealed bottle.

For many years it was generally accepted that ammonia and nitrite oxidizers were the same in seawater as well as in freshwater. Recent discoveries and techniques have shown that this is not the case. Research on nitrifying bacterial populations associated with freshwater and marine aquariums, conducted by Hovanec and Delong (1996), has shown that bacteria responsible for ammonia oxidation, Nitrosomonas europaea, are abundant in marine aquariums and in very low populations in freshwater.TalenCo2003). Other studies have shown that the major nitrite oxidizers in freshwater and marine water belong to Nitrospira sp. and not to Nitrobacter sp. as previously thought (Burrell et al., 1998; Daims et al., 2000). Until a few years ago, little research was done and little information was available from research into biological filter systems in aquaculture. Even now that some studies have been carried out, little information is available regarding the specific bacterial composition of the biofilm in the biofilters and the role they play in the nitrogen removal processes.TalenCo2003)
It is therefore not surprising that many books and publications concerning seawater aquaristics, even after 2003, contain outdated information. ref: MB biofilm CMF de Haes 2016

That said, data obtained in fresh water cannot be transferred to sea water.

Great strides have been made in research in recent decades and marine bacteria appear to be very different from freshwater bacteria and respond differently to environmental conditions. It also appears that in closed marine systems and biofilters Archaea play a very important role in the reduction of ammonia to nitrite. And they are not just available in a closed bottle.
It is not only different species but also within the strains and clades there are big differences and some are specific to a particular organism, to local conditions, such as a coral holobiont.

Most bacteria needed cannot be transported in a sealed bottle.

 

[Tobin VP]

I just completed reading all 18 pages of this thread ... and previously the 103 pages of the original "Bacteria in a Bottle, Myth or Fact". I'm exhausted .. but I have to say (I think) I learned a lot from all of the passionate differing views. I'm finding cycling and the nitrification in saltwater topic within the hobby to be quite fascinating ... and clearly there appears to be many unsettled views and approaches.

@Dr. Reef

First off, I want to reiterate how appreciative I am of your hard work in this area. Great job and effort!

But I also have to say ... I was reading along with great anticipation of getting to see the higher fidelity NH3 time series data and results from the proposed Seneye experiments. It appears that was never done? Is there any intention of still doing those experiments? If not, what were the reasons? Were there some challenges that made them impractical or impossible to continue to pursue? Or did you conclude that the main objectives were really already met in the prior experiments and that go-forward time and costs were not supported? My apologies if I missed that along the way...

​