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

[Dan_P]

What additive(s)? If in stock, Eli only offers tested live sand/rubble. No additives.

Here is the thinking behind my reply.

i “believe” there are additives in their future portfolio of goods and services. A testing only business seems to be a low margin business.

 

[areefer01]

Here is the thinking behind my reply.

i “believe” there are additives in their future portfolio of goods and services. A testing only business seems to be a low margin business.

The hobby is already saturated with additives that people flock to. I'd be of the opinion he isn't a bird of that feather.

 

[Dan_P]

Thus, it seems reasonable to me that if DOC causes coral diseases, it is not all DOC, but some subset of DOC.

This notion is supported by the references in the article. Constant exposure to high levels of saccharides cause mortality to different degrees to several species of stony coral. DOC that originates from macro algae and sewage (really?) contain saccharides and can harm coral when bacteria consume them. The mechanisms for causing harm are many, and possibly, the same disease can be caused by different mechanisms.

That is a conservative playback of what I read. The article tended to lose sight of this and drifted towards saying DOC in general, not saccharides, harm coral. This broadening of the definition of DOC reminds me of how the term detritus has developed a very broad definition jn the hobby. I did not find studies showing lipids, proteins or amino acids causing problems. I also came across the notion that transient high levels of saccharides might not be as big a danger as constant high levels,

There is much more to unpack in this article to find a more reasonable view of the danger of DOC to stony coral.

 

[telegraham]

The hobby is already saturated with additives that people flock to. I'd be of the opinion he isn't a bird of that feather.

Blind flocking.

 

[brandon429]

I'm convinced the science is useful in the future, but now it's just a wordplay trend and buyers are crowd source funding the expansion of the science. not a bad venture at all, but I'm going to get in on it about five years after this beta testing phase has run course, and additives generated based on these assays actually cause % significant tank changes I would be able to see in work threads using 100+ of other people's tanks, just like we do with cycling or algae challenges etc.

right now the science can generate a fantastic report, a % clade sampled breakdown, and that's really neat to see and think about. it cant translate into any actionable method that we could use across 100 reef tanks in a work thread currently. we still have to do the old ways that actually work, but aren't very efficient that's for sure.

these buyers are paying for thousands of reports that cannot translate into any actionable item for reefing, not a single one as of today.


that's crowdsource funding underway.
this will be a welcomed change for reefing in 2030 though and I bet we can tune reefs amazingly with the reports and subsequent dosers.

 

[areefer01]

these buyers are paying for thousands of reports that cannot translate into any actionable item for reefing, not a single one as of today.

Have you used the service?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Have you used the service?

Have you? What actionable things did you learn and act on, and what were the results?

It would seem a lot more useful to the discussion to put that out than to somehow imply criticism of someone's opinion because they did not personally use a service. I don't need to charge a Chevy bolt to know if a charger will or won't work out. Seeing someone else try it and succeed or fail is a good learning experience.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

As a serious question, and not counting folks who have clear coral disease issues, does anyone have a link to someone at Reef2Reef who had a report of issues with types of bacteria present, who then took action based on the recommendations, and something apparently improved in the tank?

I expect there are some and I just have not seen them. I would like to see them.

If there are not reasonable numbers of such people, then isn't that exactly what Brandon is suggesting?

"these buyers are paying for thousands of reports that cannot translate into any actionable item for reefing, not a single one as of today."

 

[areefer01]

Have you? What actionable things did you learn and act on, and what were the results?

A bit confrontational, but yes. I did not act on anything because that was not the justification for my use. I used the service out of curiosity. Nothing more. Foregoing a few latte's seemed like a no brainer to me.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

A bit confrontational, but yes. I did not act on anything because that was not the justification for my use. I used the service out of curiosity. Nothing more. Foregoing a few latte's seemed like a no brainer to me.

That sounds very reasonable. I assumed you were challenging Brandon's opinion with asking if he used the service, implying that his opinion should be based on using it. Sorry if that is not what you meant.

I find that fan boys of certain ideas often throw that out as a way to disparage dissenting opinions (have you dosed rubidium? have you dosed barium? Do you keep coral X that turned red after adding secret concoction X-15? Have you tried bolus dosing of bicarbonate to see if it boosts pH? ... The list is very long and tiresome. Again, sorry if it was purely an informational request.

Do you know of any experiences that suggest Brandon's opinion is not correct?

 

[areefer01]

That sounds very reasonable. I assumed you were challenging Brandon's opinion with asking if he used the service, implying that his opinion should be based on using it. Sorry if that is not what you meant.

I find that fan boys of certain ideas often throw that out as a way to disparage dissenting opinions (have you dosed rubidium? have you dosed barium? Do you keep coral X that turned red after adding secret concoction X-15? Have you tried bolus dosing of bicarbonate to see if it boosts pH? ... The list is very long and tiresome. Again, sorry if it was purely an informational request.

No, being honest I was challenging him. Only the part I quoted though because it was specific.

these buyers are paying for thousands of reports that cannot translate into any actionable item for reefing, not a single one as of today.

I don't have an issue with anyone's opinion but I also don't think making a statement like this is right. To me it is a bold statement without any supporting data.

Apologies as I'm not trying to be confrontational.

Do you know of any experiences that suggest Brandon's opinion is not correct?

I do not have any data to answer that, no. As I mentioned above I used the service twice and only to address my curiosity. I know there posts here with fellow hobbyist asking for help understanding the reports. I also know there are a couple guest appearances by Eli and Andrew discussing the process and reports which included a discussion on understanding the data.

If you would like a report PM me and I'll send you one of mine.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

If you would like a report PM me and I'll send you one of mine.

Thanks, but I’ve got some that folks posted.

 

[brandon429]

that's a fair opinion I don't think it's harsh. not allowing me to critique red sea seam breaks for 17 pages of actual collected seam break destruction events since I don't own a red sea tank was harsh / I know what ur meaning here though.


let me ask you this to see if we're on the same page, when someone pays for the analysis, are they doing it out of curiosity in general, or are they going to make a fundamental approach or design change after they get the report?

what are the steps to make such a change. It's true I'm assuming literally all buyers just want to see their clade breakdown on a sheet of paper, but then that paper goes into a file cabinet, or sits on a desk and does nothing for the tank until years later. is any of that not correct?

honestly if I'm wrong in my assumptions I would change it. I retain a little bit of skepticism about Eli just because reef nerds nitpick each other and once he told me that he tested caribsea live sand and found it inactive, meaning it was a lark product, but then Taricha tests the sand recently and finds it working quite effectively, just as the bag labeled.

it bothered me a little bit that Eli came in and said his testing invalidated something, and then it was validated later by someone who does not sell things to us/Taricha.

In further challenge I have a thread running where for 19 pages of examples we determined whether or not someone's reef tank was cycled solely off their 1x tank picture, with total accuracy. He had said at the start of the thread: that can't be done, then we proceeded to do it for the next four straight years.

I have no doubt Eli can run microbiological circles around me with his eyes blindfolded for sure. I would expect that from a phD. My problem is I cannot tell what % is a sales claim from him, and what % of his claims are going to withstand work thread scrutiny.

so I'm a skeptical reef nerd about it that's all. truly if my takeaway was shortchanging him I'd fix it. lemme know.

 

[brandon429]

regarding AB's application to Fish disease (he has big sales ventures set around ensuring sold materials are disease free)

Jay I’m wondering if you believe Aquabiomics testing validity

Do you believe AB for-charge testing is a way to identify presence of uronema in a reef tank? one drop of water, or a few, a couple swabs representing .0001% of a reef tanks biome is valid? How are we ensured the other unsampled portions don’t have the pathogen? I noticed that paying...

www.reef2reef.com

until the response here gets changed, I'll hold course. I sourced this material below from:

1. one of the top two reefers to speak on disease. HF is the other. Jay is a powerful resource for us here
Eli is fifty thousand rungs down on the fish disease ladder comparatively, he's not fixing fish disease in any current system from what I can see.

Jay fixes disease issues all day long, and we have his track record on file there to inspect.

2. Jay sells nothing and Ive never seen him state an inconsistency, let alone two in a row.

so In summary:

I can't rely on AB for any type of disease control. Fallow and quarantine is still required, and when it's not, the disease forum stickies will be selling on behalf of AB> as of now, they don't even consider his services.


I can't rely on Eli to help me fix the hundreds of dinos challenge tanks I get sent in pm


I can't use Eli's testing system to help me cycle reef tanks, we use testless methods that are free and so far have not failed.


I can't use Eli's system to make my own sps grow faster, although there's nothing wrong with the current rate.


When someone posts a reef tank rescue request help thread, I collect the outcomes of working those, I cannot use his services effectively. What I can use is free, works consistently so that means to me his product is still in the refinement phase.


there isn't one thing I spend time doing on the internet which affects other people's reef tanks where an AB report would help me in any way whatsoever. that's not being mean I promise. I know I'm usually snooty but not this time lol.

B


what would impress me:

Eli / or someone familiar with his services/actual user/ would source out RTN and STN help threads, get them to send in samples and generate the reports, find an antibiotic that is matched to the species target determined, then use a directed course of 'biotics to fix 10 RTN/STN tanks in a standard work thread.


10 tanks doing a single challenge set of actions isn't that hard to manage if the science is good. our work threads using a given method are usually out hundreds of pages after several years running.



**I just thought of one handy time an aquabiomics report helped me to learn something I didn't know ahead of time:

that a very harsh rip clean using tap water did not wipe out the system's biome. In our sand rinse thread, we had someone do a tank transfer/100% rip clean/ and in the clean system they sent off for an AB report. it came back within the same skew ~ % as any other system, it was not destabilizing at the microbial level.

we used it as supporting proof that rip cleans were not harmful. this was of course after already collecting them for 7 years/happy outcomes. we just wanted to see actually if clades changed drastically, they did not.

that is truly one time I thought the test was handy, but I would not have paid for that. I can simply look at anyone's post rip clean tank to see their corals and fish are quite happy.

 

[areefer01]

that's a fair opinion I don't think it's harsh. not allowing me to critique red sea seam breaks for 17 pages of actual collected seam break destruction events since I don't own a red sea tank was harsh / I know what ur meaning here though.


let me ask you this to see if we're on the same page, when someone pays for the analysis, are they doing it out of curiosity in general, or are they going to make a fundamental approach or design change after they get the report?

I'm guessing this is addressed to me? If not, ignore.

I don't think either of us know under what condition(s) hobbyist are purchasing the analysis. I can only speak for my use case so let me expand on that (20,000 feet):

• I know up front that there is a minimum turn around time to process the sample and create a report.
• I know that there are risks in the preparation or sequencing as well processing. In short something happens, not enough data in the report, and I either get a refund or kit to run another sample.
• I know I, the hobbyist, factor into the results as it assumes I am properly collecting and handling the sample.
• Knowing these things up front I did not submit a sample for corrective action but rather informational only (curiosity). Setting a baseline should I want to run samples at a later date and time to compare and contrast.

As you can see in my case I wasn't looking for action only the point in time data, result. I do not know, nor claim to know, if everyone is using it for causal research. I believe this is one of our disagreement areas. To me it sounds like you are focused on the report giving things to solve whereas I see it as a tool to provide data.

I will also admit that I am assuming that the business is doing things right and trusting that the results are accurate. I am not trying to reach low earth orbit so I am ok with my assumption(s).

 

[JCOLE]

does anyone have a link to someone at Reef2Reef who had a report of issues with types of bacteria present, who then took action based on the recommendations, and something apparently improved in the tank?

@Randy Holmes-Farley I did. I will update later with the report and the steps I took. The end result is my tank did a complete 180 within three weeks.

 

[AquaBiomics]

it bothered me a little bit that Eli came in and said his testing invalidated something, and then it was validated later by someone who does not sell things to us/Taricha.

brandon. What are you talking about here?

 

[Garf]

he told me that he tested caribsea live sand and found it inactive, meaning it was a lark product, but then Taricha tests the sand recently and finds it working quite effectively

brandon. What are you talking about here?

Brandon has mentioned this before in other threads. I have no idea if it's accurate though. "He" is you, AquaBiomics.

 

[Dan_P]

6. Again, while I'm not discounting the idea that reef tanks might be much better off at low average DOC, and I recommend doing so for many reasons, the simple idea of high total DOC from organic carbon dosing as a significant cause of coral disease seems to not correlate well with the large number of folks who do dose organic carbon and only rarely get a coral disease problem.

I will pile on here.

The author presents no data that demonstrates that more aquarium issues occur with high DOC (does not even define high DOC) nor presents any data linking increased coral disease with high aquarium DOC nor a microbiome makeup that is different from a reef.

 

[SDchris]

The DDAM authors aren’t talking about any ol’ DOC. And besides vinegar dosing and the popularity of using macro algae to manage nitrate levels seems to even go against the idea of there being consequences of elevated DOC from algae in the reef aquarium.

I see both scenarios are correct when viewed in context. The end result of the DDAM model is you get a shift to a species that is more resilient/adapted. That is obviously a problem in natural environments, at the very least resulting in lower diversity and possibly some species becoming extinct.
In AU, you still get a reasonable amount of wild collected acro dying, you just don't see it, you only see what has survived/adapted, and at times there has been some degree of intervention to keep those alive. Did those that died do so as a result of DOC? Don't know, but I don't think having some survive and adapt goes 'against' the idea.