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

[Dan_P]

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.

I found this interesting. By the time we see stony coral, DOC might not be very important for holobiont diversity. The quote is from a study that lasted only 64 hours with a stony coral newly harvested from the reef. Structure refers to the microorganism community (Metagenomic analysis of stressed coral)

 

[Solo McReefer]

How were the Zeobak results? I feel like KZ is a quality brand, even though we don’t know what’s in the blue bottles. Would be interesting to see the results.

I would bet

3 or 4 soil inhabiting spore forming bacteria

And maybe one species used in German waste water treatment

I look forward to the actual results myself

 

[Solo McReefer]

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.

It would seem to me

That he is leaving a lot of money on the table

By not offering bottle bacterias

That seems to be a high margin business

Unless one is actually trolling the ocean for microbes to fill the bottles. That seems expensive to me

 

[Solo McReefer]

eef2Reef 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?

This is interesting

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

This is interesting

Thanks. As best I can gather he eliminated a "problem" that was only detected by DNA testing. So maybe he prevented a future problem, but maybe it would not have ever been a problem.

 

[Dan_P]

Thanks. As best I can gather he eliminated a "problem" that was only detected by DNA testing. So maybe he prevented a future problem, but maybe it would not have ever been a problem.

Not sure which segment you listened to, or where the “interesting” stuff was. I listened to 00:38 - 00:42. Here is my take.

Weast (guest) wanted to see what happened when the UV and ozone services to his aquarium were turned off. He did this in February. He had a recent Aquabiomics report.

By May the water clarity started to annoy Weast. Not sure how bad it was. No photo. Asked Andy Bowman (Aquabiomics?) whether ozone affected bacteria. Bowman did not think so. Ozone back on.

Submitted a sample to Aquabiomics in June

Report returned in July showing two coral pathogens not seen before by Weast. Bowman commented that there wasn’t much in the sample, but Weast wanted none. He dosed oxolinic acid, performed a water change, and restarted UV and ozone.

Submitted a sample to Aquabiomics in August

Report returned in September showing no pathogens. During this time of no UV and ozone corals had no issues but fish, which Weast does no quarantine, started to flash (he knows that there is Ich in his system).

What stands out for me in this discussion is that Aquabiomics does not provide information about the accuracy nor precision for its testing. This means that when you compare two tests, there is no way to know whether the difference is real or noise in the data. Bowman hints at this in July when he tells Weast that the amount of coral pathogen is small. When Weast declares victory in September when no coral pathogens are reported, we don’t know whether what measures he took in July reduced the coral pathogen number to not detectable (we don’t know what this level is) or zero or there was no change.

 

[BeanAnimal]

If the tank is a a jar of skittles (or jellybeans) of various flavors (the bacterium)...

even if our testing is PERFECT and we assume our skittles are perfectly randomly dispersed...

And for every yellow skittle, there are 100 red skittles and 50 orange skittles....

There is a fairly high chance that any random scoop contains no yellow skittles at all, and a lot more reds than oranges.


So ANY yellow skittle appearing is somewhat proof that they exist, but with only reasonable certainty that there are less of them than red or orange. But the absence of a yellow skittle does not prove they don't exist.....

 

[areefer01]

By May the water clarity started to annoy Weast. Not sure how bad it was. No photo. Asked Andy Bowman (Aquabiomics?) whether ozone affected bacteria. Bowman did not think so. Ozone back on.

I believe Dr. Eli Meyer is AquaBiomics. Dr. Andrew Bowman is a user of the services. I do not know, or claim to know, if Dr. Bowman is any more involved than that. I know both have been guests on ReefBum discussing reports and possibilities. Of course that may be a sales pitch to some others maybe not and look at it as a tool.

 

[BeanAnimal]

I don't want to directly disparage ReefBum (Keith?) but the more I am exposed to these videos, the more I am reminded why I don't follow these podcasts or social media "influencers" and "content creators" in general. I can't tell, nor do I have the time to figure out when the candid conversation is just that, or instead shill airtime with these guys scratching each other's monetary backs. To me (I could be very wrong) it feels more like a paid soapbox for advertising than it does a bunch of like minded guys bantering about the hobby. That is not a terrible thing, but if that is the case, it should be presented as such "sponsor talk with ReefBum" or whatever...

Maybe I am very wrong and only exposed to the few video clips in these threads where this stuff occurs and the rest really is just folks BS'ing about the hobby.

 

[areefer01]

Maybe I am very wrong and only exposed to the few video clips in these threads where this stuff occurs and the rest really is just folks BS'ing about the hobby.

I fully understand, and respect, your opinion. This is why I added some may see it as a sales pitch others maybe not. Onus is always on the hobbyist to determine what is providing information vs ShamWow infomercial.

On the other hand if one is curious here is one source. They have a couple actually.

Hope your day is well.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Report returned in July showing two coral pathogens not seen before by Weast. Bowman commented that there wasn’t much in the sample, but Weast wanted none. He dosed oxolinic acid, performed a water change, and restarted UV and ozone.

Submitted a sample to Aquabiomics in August

Report returned in September showing no pathogens. ).

That's the section I was referring to. If we assume the values are real and different, the question remains whether it has import since it is correcting a measurement rather than an observed issue. In other words, is a measurement an issue that needs correcting if no corals appear to have an issue?

Sure, one could argue that a future disease was prevented. Equally well, one could argue that perhaps it never would have produced observable disease.

That's where the basic research needs to come in, connecting measurement to reef tank observables.

 

[Dan_P]

If the tank is a a jar of skittles (or jellybeans) of various flavors (the bacterium)...

even if our testing is PERFECT and we assume our skittles are perfectly randomly dispersed...

And for every yellow skittle, there are 100 red skittles and 50 orange skittles....

There is a fairly high chance that any random scoop contains no yellow skittles at all, and a lot more reds than oranges.


So ANY yellow skittle appearing is somewhat proof that they exist, but with only reasonable certainty that there are less of them than red or orange. But the absence of a yellow skittle does not prove they don't exist.....

Jelly beans for me. And just to be pedantic…

If the perfection assumption is lifted, any yellow jelly bean found may not be sufficient to reject the null hypothesis of no yellow jelly beans present.

Anyway, got your meaning.

 

[Dan_P]

I don't want to directly disparage ReefBum (Keith?) but the more I am exposed to these videos, the more I am reminded why I don't follow these podcasts or social media "influencers" and "content creators" in general. I can't tell, nor do I have the time to figure out when the candid conversation is just that, or instead shill airtime with these guys scratching each other's monetary backs. To me (I could be very wrong) it feels more like a paid soapbox for advertising than it does a bunch of like minded guys bantering about the hobby. That is not a terrible thing, but if that is the case, it should be presented as such "sponsor talk with ReefBum" or whatever...

Maybe I am very wrong and only exposed to the few video clips in these threads where this stuff occurs and the rest really is just folks BS'ing about the hobby.

There is too little information per minute in these videos. I start to squirm in my seat after 5 minutes in. Unlike the written word, I can’t skim through these things. The talk show format doesn’t work for me.

 

[BeanAnimal]

There is too little information per minute in these videos. I start to squirm in my seat after 5 minutes in. Unlike the written word, I can’t skim through these things. The talk show format doesn’t work for me.

Ohh, can't make it past the intro videos, or like and subscribe banter... or being honest. past the obligatory "What's up guys..."

There are some great science and tech channels on YT - but few and far between. Hit me with the science, not the banter.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Hit me with the science, not the banter.

To that point, I use this for my work zoom background

5 Perfect Zoom Virtual Backgrounds for Chemistry Teachers

As a chemistry teacher, there are lots of distinctive, helpful ways to use Zoom's virtual background feature. Here are 5 free virtual backgrounds for you to download, customize, and add to your Zoom meetings for e-learning in 2020.

www.kapwing.com

 

[BeanAnimal]

The question is, have you authenticated the content of the image to being accurate?

 

[Dan_P]

The question is, have you authenticated the content of the image to being accurate?

It is looking a little dodgy here

 

[BeanAnimal]

Are we sure that is not the broken buffer peptide?

 

[Solo McReefer]

Patients get his labs drawn

Serum potassium is 3.8, trending down. Given kidney function, patient receives 40 meq of KCl

Recheck in 4 hours. 4.1

Serum Hemoglobin and Hematocrit return 6.9 and 23.1, trending down. Patient receives a unit of PRBCs. Redraw is 7.3 and 26.8, low but within normal limits. Samples would be taken occult blood if a new finding.

Doing interventions before there is outward signs of disorder or disease is commonplace

We wouldn't wait for your K to be 2.1, and showing cardiac arrythmia

It's not unreasonable to intervene before there is a serious problem. It's the reason why labs and scans are done, before serious problem

These protocols took years or decades to perfect after the invention of the means to test what we are intervening upon

 

[Dan_P]

Patients get his labs drawn

Serum potassium is 3.8, trending down. Given kidney function, patient receives 40 meq of KCl

Recheck in 4 hours. 4.1

Serum Hemoglobin and Hematocrit return 6.9 and 23.1, trending down. Patient receives a unit of PRBCs. Redraw is 7.3 and 26.8, low but within normal limits. Samples would be taken occult blood if a new finding.

Doing interventions before there is outward signs of disorder or disease is commonplace

We wouldn't wait for your K to be 2.1, and showing cardiac arrythmia

It's not unreasonable to intervene before there is a serious problem. It's the reason why labs and scans are done, before serious problem

These protocols took years or decades to perfect after the invention of the means to test what we are intervening upon

Are you saying better safe than sorry?