Bottled Bacteria, AquaBiomics. Just what's in your bottles

[Solo McReefer]

So we have maybe 2 willing to throw into the original idea of finding out?

The public crowdfund original idea

Was a very bad idea. It seemed to be just a bad idea the night I posted this. Before the discussion started

It is not going to happen as proposed in the beginning

 

[Garf]

Aqua biomics info supplied by telegram about Pelagibacteraceae was quite interesting. They grow in nutrient depleted water as they are adapted to do so, the levels in reef tanks are low, perhaps non existent in higher nutrient tanks and ones growing algae etc. I doubt you can buy a bottle of it though. There seems to be an implied correlation with the presence of this bacteria and coral health. Sure, clean water is probably a good idea on the GBR, but why include the presence of bacteria except as an indicator of low nutrients? Doubt my tank has much of it (unless it grows in my saltwater mixing barrel), lol.

 

[telegraham]

Aqua biomics info supplied by telegram about Pelagibacteraceae was quite interesting. They grow in nutrient depleted water as they are adapted to do so, the levels in reef tanks are low, perhaps non existent in higher nutrient tanks and ones growing algae etc. I doubt you can buy a bottle of it though. There seems to be an implied correlation with the presence of this bacteria and coral health. Sure, clean water is probably a good idea on the GBR, but why include the presence of bacteria except as an indicator of low nutrients? Doubt my tank has much of it (unless it grows in my saltwater mixing barrel), lol.

I think this is where personal experience, especially as it relates to the sharing of others’ data and how they reef, plays a part. Here are three systems all owned by the same reefer.

I didn’t scroll until I found one to quell your doubts. This is the first one I found.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Have you used AquaBiomics service? I'm not asking to be that guy. The question is more along the lines of that great power/great responsibility thing.

I have not, but I think it is an excellent tool to answer specific, focussed questions.

Testing of bacterial additives for composition, and what effects that has on the bacteria in a tank over time seems well suited for it.

Let me give another example that is both directly tied to the exact topic of this thread, and helps clarify my comments relating to folks potentially having different opinions on which bacteria are desirable vs undesirable.

Some readers here are aware of my hypothesis that the vilification of ammonia has lead to products that may actually do more harm than good, and are doing a disservice to the hobby. The constant drumbeat that nitrifiers are desirable and should be frequently added directly or promoted by adding media to house them may be hurting reef tanks. The hypothesis is that these actions cause ammonia to be converted to nitrate faster than it otherwise would, causing corals to have to use more energy to process nitrate than their preferred N source of ammonia.

Using these bacteria tools to determine which additives contain nitrifiers, and help some reefers possibly avoid them could be very useful . It could also help reefers understand what effects these additives and media additions or removal can have on the amount of nitrifying bacteria in their aquaria..

Thus, I am not at all against using the tool to answer specific questions. If folks have reasons to be concerned about problematic levels of pathogens, that too could be useful.

I’m much less convinced about other issues such as relating to biodiversity.

 

[telegraham]

Or are we going to wait for Telegraham to post some results and credit his efforts?

I don’t need credit and I’ve shared my list of tested juices here. As for the next round, I’m sending in Special Blend, One And Only, KZ CyanoClean, and KZ Zeobak tomorrow.

Buy some tests and jump on in!

 

[telegraham]

I have not, but I think it is an excellent tool to answer specific, focussed questions.

Testing of bacterial additives for composition, and what effects that has on the bacteria in a tank over time seems well suited for it.

Let me give another example that is both directly tied to the exact topic of this thread, and helps clarify my comments relating to folks potentially having different opinions on which bacteria are desirable vs undesirable.

Some readers here are aware of my hypothesis that the vilification of ammonia has lead to products that may actually do more harm than good, and are doing a disservice to the hobby. The constant drumbeat that nitrifiers are desirable and should be frequently added directly or promoted by adding media to house them may be hurting reef tanks. The hypothesis is that these actions cause ammonia to be converted to nitrate faster than it otherwise would, causing corals to have to use more energy to process nitrate than their preferred N source of ammonia.

Using these bacteria tools to determine which additives contain nitrifiers, and help some reefers possibly avoid them could be very useful . It could also help reefers understand what effects these additives and media additions or removal can have on the amount of nitrifying bacteria in their aquaria..

Thus, I am not at all against using the tool to answer specific questions. If folks have reasons to be concerned about problematic levels of pathogens, that too could be useful.

I’m much less convinced about other issues such as relating to biodiversity.

I completely agree. This is the intersection of your lane(s) and Eli’s, and something you both should consider as a collaboration.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

And the stipend comes from? Advertising and sponsor dollars.

Now I think your comments are becoming misguided and insulting if the idea is that I choose my comments based on advertising and sponsorship.

I discuss and criticize products and services that merit criticism regardless of the company or person making them. I have frequently criticized sponsor products or claims. In extreme cases I have suggested that Reef2Reef stop allowing sponsorship by certain companies, and in a different case, a sponsor disliked my comments enough to discontinue sponsorship. I have never once been asked or suggested by Reef2Reef management to comment or not comment on any topic because of advertising or sponsorship.

In the case of this thread, I’m not even sure what sort of conspiracy theory has me commenting here that relates to advertising or sponsorship.

That’s all I’m going to say here on this topic since it is entirely unrelated to this thread. If you think it merits further discussion, I suggest starting a different thread.

 

[Garf]

I think this is where personal experience, especially as it relates to the sharing of others’ data and how they reef, plays a part. Here are three systems all owned by the same reefer.

I didn’t scroll until I found one to quell your doubts. This is the first one I found.

Indeed, tanks have a "Three body problem". Change one tiny thing (intentionally or unintentionally) and all sorts of odd changes take place. These tiny changes happen constantly. The aquabiomics advice for increasing palegic bacteria is to turn off UV and increase water changes for example. These actions do not just effect the target organism, it cannot. So what's the plan? Make the adjustments and retest? Forever?

 

[telegraham]

So what's the plan? Make the adjustments and retest? Forever?

That's ridiculous, or maybe it isn't. I'm sure you'll agree that part of the hobby can be continuous learning. That's obviously not for some, but reefers out there are testing these hypotheses. For those willing to add data to the hobby, maybe part of their hobby is testing. Maybe forever. That's ok. It's also ok that others sit back and ask non-experiential questions. Maybe that leads to learning, too.

 

[Jay Hemdal]

I stole an idea from @telegraham

Would there be enough interest for a GiveSendGo, crowdfund, fund to buy all, from A to Zeobak, the commercial bottled bacterias

And have them all analyzed for exactly what is in them, by AquaBiomics?

With the results going to the funders

Couldn't be about $2000 for the bottles and the tests

Say, 20 funders at $100 a donation. Or 40 funders at $50

[I have no idea what the crowdfund slice is, or if the IRS wants a slice, that would be added to the fund if so]

Any interest in such an experiment. Any interest in figuring out which bugs are in the bug juice?

Sorry, Jim, I could only find the Eco Balance post. And the Serratia concerns me. How many other bottles have pathogens in them, and what are they?

Serratia marcscens is not only a coral pathogen, it is a human pathogen as well. That concerns me a fraction more than RTN'ing of my acros

One problem would be that the results would no doubt get back to the vendors. If two products appear identical, or one doesn't have good results, you'll see a LOT of activity where the companies will try to protect their brands. I ran into this twice - when I ran some sea salt testing, and then with my carbon / HLLE research - in both cases I was approached by manufacturers in a very aggressive way.

I also wonder if these products are all just bacteria cultures? Fritzyme's name implies that it has some enzymes in it.

I also think you'll find that some of these products are identical. I was told by a friend who was visiting one of these companies in Texas, that their back lot was littered with empty carboys from another bacteria supplier just down the road from them.

Tim Hovenac invented a line of these products, and given the original research he has published on this topic, he really knows his stuff. Most of the other companies don't have actual R&D departments.

 

[Garf]

Fritzyme's name implies that it has some enzymes in it.

I did an "experiment" with Fritzyme 9, supposedly pure nytrifyers. Added vinegar and saltwater and boom, heterotrophic bloom. I can't prove it was the Fritzyme, obviously my own contaminants can't be ruled out. They have a video somewhere that accepts the process is not sterile and "other stuff can get in" (paraphrased).

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

One problem would be that the results would no doubt get back to the vendors. If two products appear identical, or one doesn't have good results, you'll see a LOT of activity where the companies will try to protect their brands. I ran into this twice - when I ran some sea salt testing, and then with my carbon / HLLE research - in both cases I was approached by manufacturers in a very aggressive way.

I’ve had similar unpleasant experiences. Shining light on product attributes and claims is often unwelcome.

 

[telegraham]

One problem would be that the results would no doubt get back to the vendors.

My results have made it to the vendors, one was aggressive/demeaning (not a surprise given the proprietor), one I sent to the vendor because the results indicated a pathogen (but they haven't replied with anything beyond, "We'll look into it."), and others are quiet.

I also think you'll find that some of these products are identical.

Eco-Balance and MB7 contain the same big three bacillus species (confirmed with multiple tests of multiple lots), but Eco-Balance adds a bug identified as Serratia marcescens. To date, Tim, who you reference, has not offered an explanation.

I’ve had similar unpleasant experiences.

That just means you're doing something correctly.

 

[Garf]

Eco-Balance adds a bug identified as Serratia marcescens. To date, Tim, who you reference, has not offered an explanation.

Serratia marcescens (/səˈreɪʃiə mɑːrˈsɛsɪnz/)[3][failed verification] is a species of rod-shaped, Gram-negative bacteria in the family Yersiniaceae. It is a facultative anaerobe and an opportunistic pathogen in humans

Unintentional hitchhiker?

Or Dr Tim's friendly probiotic;

"Research has demonstrated that friendly probiotic bacteria are key to maintaining a balanced, stress-free aquarium environment."

Or faulty test results?

 

[lpramos]

My results have made it to the vendors, one was aggressive/demeaning (not a surprise given the proprietor), one I sent to the vendor because the results indicated a pathogen (but they haven't replied with anything beyond, "We'll look into it."), and others are quiet.


Eco-Balance and MB7 contain the same big three bacillus species (confirmed with multiple tests of multiple lots), but Eco-Balance adds a bug identified as Serratia marcescens. To date, Tim, who you reference, has not offered an explanation.


That just means you're doing something correctly.

Jay, Randy, telegraham and other pioneers in reefing (taricha, Dan P, many others) are to be commended for pushing the state of the art of reefing forward. Especially in light of the occasional negative comments on this forum and the pushback from vendors whose bad practices and deceptions are exposed.

THANK YOU GUYS!

 

[telegraham]

Serratia marcescens (/səˈreɪʃiə mɑːrˈsɛsɪnz/)[3][failed verification] is a species of rod-shaped, Gram-negative bacteria in the family Yersiniaceae. It is a facultative anaerobe and an opportunistic pathogen in humans

Unintentional hitchhiker?

Or Dr Tim's friendly probiotic;

"Research has demonstrated that friendly probiotic bacteria are key to maintaining a balanced, stress-free aquarium environment."

Or faulty test results?

Or something identified as a known coral pathogen. I do Google, too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_pox_disease

Multiple lots, multiple tests, and confirmed by third-party testing.

 

[telegraham]

Unintentional hitchhiker?

This hypothesis is reasonable, but the bacteria identified as S. marcescens is ~44% of the bottle's bacterial contents.

 

[.AcroKiller.]

.

 

[telegraham]

White band disease - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Edited 7 month ago. Yours was edited 1 year ago. Look under pathogen.

And? That's band, not pox.

White Band Disease
Appearance: Produces a distinctive white band where the coral skeleton has been denuded. This band typically progresses from the base of a coral branch upward toward the tip.
Affected corals: Primarily affects Acropora cervicornis and Acropora palmata.
Progression: The disease spreads along the coral colony in a band-like pattern.

White Pox Disease
Appearance: Causes irregular white patches or blotches on the coral, resulting from the loss of coral tissue.
Affected corals: Primarily affects Elkhorn coral (Acropora palmata).
Progression: The disease creates patchy areas of tissue loss on the coral.


Serratia marcescens specific info: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3157384/

Consider bringing personal experience to the table. I think you have a whole slew of bottles you could test, yes?

 

[.AcroKiller.]

And? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3157384/ Consider bringing personal experience to the table.

I was just sharing that because there’s so much info from difference sources that’s sometimes is hard to understand. Same goes for our hobby. Btw can’t wait for your results on the special blend as is one of the products I use.