Microbacter Clean: Before Vs After

[Dan_P]

This is something that bothers me about Microbacter. By every account I've heard, it's some magical bacteria that can live for a time in salt water, but supposedly cannot reproduce or become self sustaining, meaning that you will need to dose it forever.

Ideally you dose some bacteria and at some point it reaches equilibrium. Maybe at first it blooms and exhausts its food source, and then maybe it dies back and the food source rebounds, but eventually there should be some state where as much food reproduces as is necessary to feed a stable population of the bacteria, and then you don't need the bacteria anymore.

Agree with your thought process..

Bacteria in the bottle apologists suggest that the bacteria are skimmed out and need to be replaced, though there is no data to say this happens.

 

[BristleWormHater]

This is something that bothers me about Microbacter. By every account I've heard, it's some magical bacteria that can live for a time in salt water, but supposedly cannot reproduce or become self sustaining, meaning that you will need to dose it forever.

Ideally you dose some bacteria and at some point it reaches equilibrium. Maybe at first it blooms and exhausts its food source, and then maybe it dies back and the food source rebounds, but eventually there should be some state where as much food reproduces as is necessary to feed a stable population of the bacteria, and then you don't need the bacteria anymore.

Exactly!
Also dosing bacteria a bunch can cause low oxygen levels in the water, plus it won't be effective in a more established tank, there's no more surface area for it.

 

[Newb_reefer1]

Agree with your thought process..

Bacteria in the bottle apologists suggest that the bacteria are skimmed out and need to be replaced, though there is no data to say this happens.

I too agree that at some point there should have been an equilibrium between this stuff and its food source in the tank, however according to the Microbacter Clean bottle skimming is the reason for needing to redose the stuff weekly.

Although I’m not too sure how one would accurately record said data, from my understanding the majority of beneficial bacteria primarily live on the rocks and are not free floating in the water. I actually happen to have a compound microscope so I could put some of the stuff on a slide and try to identify whatever type of bacteria is actually inside the bottle & go from there.

Exactly!
Also dosing bacteria a bunch can cause low oxygen levels in the water, plus it won't be effective in a more established tank, there's no more surface area for it.

I wasn’t aware that this was a potential side effect of this stuff but I run my skimmer 24/7 except on fridays for 4 hours when I add it after a WC. Thankfully this hasn’t been an issue for me… While we are on the subject of a now established tank in theory if the bacteria coming from the bottle is stronger than what’s currently in the tank couldn’t it out compete the other types for the same space / resources ?

 

[IceNein]

The notion that you have to watch out for O2 comes from carbon dosing, which causes bacteria to reproduce rapidly. Since the bacteria use oxygen in the same way that most animals do, a sudden increase in bacteria can deplete the oxygen inside your tank.

 

[Solo McReefer]

Agree with your thought process..

Bacteria in the bottle apologists suggest that the bacteria are skimmed out and need to be replaced, though there is no data to say this happens.

That is the foundation of the ZeoVit Method

Bacteria, the added ZeoBak, is skimmed out after "consuming" the carbon source(and tank Ns and Ps)

As well as "feeding" the bacterial mulm to corals that "consume" bacteria

It was,is, the prototypical ULNS system. And when you look at the tanks and corals that employed the method, it's difficult to argue that it was ineffective at what it daid it did.

The starved coral Easter egg look was definitely "data" that was unmistakable

We now know that the zeolites give off silica. And the ZeoBak contains human pathogens. So use it at your own risk

 

[Solo McReefer]

is exactly why research studies are conducted the way they are.

Ya

We know how that goes now, don't we?

Anyway, the term "evidence based" is used where there is evidence that something works, without there being full on double blind studies that are peer reviewed

There is enough evidence to say that bacteria can reduce Ns and Ps in a tank, using a carbon source

There is enough evidence that bacteria is consumed by corals, and deliver Ns and Ps to corals

There is enough evidence that bacteria can supplant nuisance algae in a reef system, most likely by forming a slime coat on surfaces preventing nuisance algae taking hold or making a holdfast

And there is enough evidence, that bacteria is skimmed out of the water via a protein skimmer. Ostensibly having filled itself with Ns and Ps from the tank water

Anyway, carry on

 

[sixty_reefer]

I too agree that at some point there should have been an equilibrium between this stuff and its food source in the tank, however according to the Microbacter Clean bottle skimming is the reason for needing to redose the stuff weekly.

Although I’m not too sure how one would accurately record said data, from my understanding the majority of beneficial bacteria primarily live on the rocks and are not free floating in the water. I actually happen to have a compound microscope so I could put some of the stuff on a slide and try to identify whatever type of bacteria is actually inside the bottle & go from there.

I wasn’t aware that this was a potential side effect of this stuff but I run my skimmer 24/7 except on fridays for 4 hours when I add it after a WC. Thankfully this hasn’t been an issue for me… While we are on the subject of a now established tank in theory if the bacteria coming from the bottle is stronger than what’s currently in the tank couldn’t it out compete the other types for the same space / resources ?

just as a suggestion here, wouldn’t it be more efficient to focus on the type of carbon added by using this product than the bacteria itself?
Dosing weekly usually suggests that the most beneficial ingredient is the addition of a long chain polymer/complex carbohydrates that is stimulating bacteria competition for nutrients with the nuisances that you are seeing a reduction on or stimulation decomposers to reduce those nutrients being released into the water column in the first place?

Just adding bacteria usually has no effect at all if their carbon needs are not met. Different strains of bacteria will require different types of carbon to flourish.
There is a big illusion that you can just add diversity by just adding bacteria to a environment.

 

[Dan_P]

There is a big illusion that you can just add diversity by just adding bacteria to a environment.

Hence my provisional “snake oil” classification for the bacteria-in-a-bottle product line, excepting nitrifying bacteria in a bottle. This product has a measurable effect.

 

[BristleWormHater]

Hence my provisional “snake oil” classification for the bacteria-in-a-bottle product line, excepting nitrifying bacteria in a bottle. This product has a measurable effect.

I don't trust their nitritfying bacteria either @Randy Holmes-Farley tested mb7 and some other nitritfying bacteria, mb7 was a very poor culture compared to its competition.

 

[rishma]

I want to believe products like MB clean work but the more time I spend in this forum to more I doubt most products. The whole vibrant debacle made me realize that snake oil can be even worse than useless, it can be potentially harmful. It’s so seductive to think I can add a bacteria to compete with algae. I really think I want a diverse microbiome, but I realize I don’t really know why I want that and definitely don’t know if any of these products would help me get it. I suppose I should be grateful to keep some money in my pocket.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Hence my provisional “snake oil” classification for the bacteria-in-a-bottle product line, excepting nitrifying bacteria in a bottle. This product has a measurable effect.

Agreed, although some would possibly call it “snake oil” if they weren’t aware that they need to buy ammonium chloride to allow them to multiply and keep numbers up.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

i’m doing a combination of MB clean combined with snow and my corals and tank look fantastic. 75% improved. The cyano is gone and corals all open and looking great. Granted, I do weeekly water changes, test daily, and dose carefully.

As some said, i’d like to see a list of the bacterial strains that are in the product.

Did you ever use just the snow alone? It would be nice to disentangle the effects, but because of folks like SunnyX using both bacteria and snow, many people now also use both.

 

[ChrisfromBrick]

Did you ever use just the snow alone? It would be nice to disentangle the effects, but because of folks like SunnyX using both bacteria and snow, many people now also use both.

No, but I will try it to see the difference.

 

[Dan_P]

I don't trust their nitritfying bacteria either @Randy Holmes-Farley tested mb7 and some other nitritfying bacteria, mb7 was a very poor culture compared to its competition.

I agree that all nitrifying bacteria products are not the same.

 

[livinlifeinBKK]

Ya

We know how that goes now, don't we?

Anyway, the term "evidence based" is used where there is evidence that something works, without there being full on double blind studies that are peer reviewed

There is enough evidence to say that bacteria can reduce Ns and Ps in a tank, using a carbon source

There is enough evidence that bacteria is consumed by corals, and deliver Ns and Ps to corals

There is enough evidence that bacteria can supplant nuisance algae in a reef system, most likely by forming a slime coat on surfaces preventing nuisance algae taking hold or making a holdfast

And there is enough evidence, that bacteria is skimmed out of the water via a protein skimmer. Ostensibly having filled itself with Ns and Ps from the tank water

Anyway, carry on

Hey there, just got around to reading your comment so Ill respond...
The partial quote from one of my comments mentions the fact that there are many variables which need to be taken into consideration so I'm not sure if that partial quote was a great choice for you there.

You state that "evidence based" is used where there is evidence that something works". What evidence can you present that this product does or doesn't work? You dont have any evidence based on your comment and are just assuming that because some marine bacteria have been linked to the effects you mention, they can be applied to whatever bacteria are in this particular product.

I dont know why im mentioning any of this and I wont go into further details because it appears unlikely you actually know what double-blind studies are. I assume youre likely just clawing for scientific terms...if not, can you simply mention the purpose of conducting a double-blind study to research the effects of marine bacteria on anything you mentioned above?

But that's a very cute picture you left! I wish I had the time to search the internet to leave pictures like that on posts.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

The notion that you have to watch out for O2 comes from carbon dosing, which causes bacteria to reproduce rapidly. Since the bacteria use oxygen in the same way that most animals do, a sudden increase in bacteria can deplete the oxygen inside your tank.

Maybe. They will only decrease O2 if there is excess organic matter for them to consume. I would not be convinced that such an excess in organics is typically present in amounts to significantly drop O2.

 

[Dan_P]

That is the foundation of the ZeoVit Method

Bacteria, the added ZeoBak, is skimmed out after "consuming" the carbon source(and tank Ns and Ps)

As well as "feeding" the bacterial mulm to corals that "consume" bacteria

It was,is, the prototypical ULNS system. And when you look at the tanks and corals that employed the method, it's difficult to argue that it was ineffective at what it daid it did.

The starved coral Easter egg look was definitely "data" that was unmistakable

We now know that the zeolites give off silica. And the ZeoBak contains human pathogens. So use it at your own risk

OK thanks. I remain a skeptic though when the only data we have are uncontrolled demonstrations and anecdotal data. When a bacteria-in-a-bottle vendor cannot present credible evidence for their product’s performance, one needs to be skeptical of claims.

 

[Dan_P]

Ya

We know how that goes now, don't we?

Anyway, the term "evidence based" is used where there is evidence that something works, without there being full on double blind studies that are peer reviewed

There is enough evidence to say that bacteria can reduce Ns and Ps in a tank, using a carbon source

There is enough evidence that bacteria is consumed by corals, and deliver Ns and Ps to corals

There is enough evidence that bacteria can supplant nuisance algae in a reef system, most likely by forming a slime coat on surfaces preventing nuisance algae taking hold or making a holdfast

And there is enough evidence, that bacteria is skimmed out of the water via a protein skimmer. Ostensibly having filled itself with Ns and Ps from the tank water

Anyway, carry on

Yeah but…

While the points made are valid, they only suggest that there is possibility not the probability that a bacteria-in-a-bottle product does anything. I would really like to see the data that a product performs any of the functions claimed. Customer testimonials are not the type of data interests me.

Hey, who’s the dude in the white coat?

 

[rishma]

In the late 90’s and early 00’s I used vinegar to increase the potency of my kalk. I had no idea I was carbon dosing. My SPS, that were doing well and growing (boy did I think I was an advanced reefer!) got really pale. I think of it everytime I see a zeovit tank.

My point is, I wasn’t adding any bacteria and saw a similar affect. I wonder if the zeobak really changes the way the system works.

 

[livinlifeinBKK]

Yeah but…

While the points made are valid, they only suggest that there is possibility not the probability that a bacteria-in-a-bottle product does anything. I would really like to see the data that a product performs any of the functions claimed. Customer testimonials are not the type of data interests me.

Hey, who’s the dude in the white coat?

I agree. They suggest that the bottled bacteria possibly had an effect...how likely or unlikely that this caused the effect is no clearer than the sources this undocumented evidence came from. Im a little curious how and where all this evidence was gathered in support of bacteria consumed by corals providing nitrates and phosphates if it wasnt a peer-reviewed study...seems difficult to assess by making daily observations alone...

Also, if someone hasn't heard this yet, correlation does not imply causation...