Bacteria bottle

[taricha]

Quick question. Would a biofilm of the bottled bacteria inhibit algae growth? I know that is an off the wall question but you might have run across something on the topic.

biofilm of bottled bacteria inhibit algae - compared to what?
compared to no biofilm (raw dry rock)? or compared to natural bioflim (tank-native rock)?

I probably can't answer either question. but curious what your angle is.

And in either case, I'd say that a live coralline algae covered surface is less friendly to nuisance algae colonization than either raw surface or established biofilm surface.

 

[taricha]

the conclusion is that it works and there is various ways to achieve the same goal in this hobby.

yep. I've said before and I do still agree that people experience positive effects from grunge-eating bacterial products that is probably stronger than just wishful thinking.

It is certainly hard to show that bacteria from a bottle do something that native aquarium bacteria don't. The tests that seem obvious to a hobbyist keep pointing the other way.

Many hobbyists find bacterial additives to be helpful even in mature tanks (seems higher than placebo to me - but maybe I underestimate placebo) and I can't help but wonder if it's mostly the media in some products that are doing beneficial things.

But still no data I've seen says it's the bacteria themselves having the effect.

edit: you may have noticed that there was no N or P in the vial, this is for the bacteria that is in the vessel be limited in N and P until added to a aquarium that is abundant in N and P and limited in C.

interestingly in the case of WA, the PO4 in the bottle was high enough that a recommended dose (1ml / 10 gal) would raise a whole system by 0.03ppm PO4.
No detectable N though as you say, and inactivity in the bottle is assured by a very high concentration of a preservative. Enough that even a 1/10th dilution of the product halts saltwater bacteria in its tracks. Just random interesting observations.

 

[sixty_reefer]

yep. I've said before and I do still agree that people experience positive effects from grunge-eating bacterial products that is probably stronger than just wishful thinking.

But still no data I've seen says it's the bacteria themselves having the effect.

I know what you mean here, you in doubt if it is the bacteria in the bottle or the existing bacteria doing the work. This would be impossible to verify although a combination of both doing the work could be acceptable as there is carbon present in the product that is added.

interestingly in the case of WA, the PO4 in the bottle was high enough that a recommended dose (1ml / 10 gal) would raise a whole system by 0.03ppm PO4.
No detectable N though as you say, and inactivity in the bottle is assured by a very high concentration of a preservative. Enough that even a 1/10th dilution of the product halts saltwater bacteria in its tracks. Just random interesting observations.

The presence of N and P was just a guess. As if all 3 were to be present the bacteria wouldn’t be dormant, the presence of C and P will still be limiting growth as no N in the bottle, manufactures may be doing this as a precaution if no P and C is present in the system to be dosed unfortunately this strains of bacteria won’t do anything without the presence of all 3 nutrients.
theoretical one could keep it dormant with C and N as long as no P is available.

This will be happening the same way In our systems if one of the 3 nutrients is limited the bacteria won’t be able to carry on assimilating nutrients, this is where Cyanobacteria and dinoflagellates come to play, Cyanobacteria for example gets its N from the atmosphere meaning that they will only need for C and P to be available to thrive in our systems.

 

[Dan_P]

biofilm of bottled bacteria inhibit algae - compared to what?
compared to no biofilm (raw dry rock)? or compared to natural bioflim (tank-native rock)?

I probably can't answer either question. but curious what your angle is.

And in either case, I'd say that a live coralline algae covered surface is less friendly to nuisance algae colonization than either raw surface or established biofilm surface.

I am interested in how algae settlement and growth differ on a clean surface v bacteria biofilm. Or are there differences between bacteria biofilms with different bacteria or thickness, etc. Thinking about all the ways a new aquarium surface can develop or not develop nuisance algae.

I have heard coralline algae effect. Seems reasonably straightforward to test

 

[mindme]

OK, so not several papers but an internet article we can’t see any more. so really no data available then. Thanks for trying.

 

[sixty_reefer]

I am interested in how algae settlement and growth differ on a clean surface v bacteria biofilm. Or are there differences between bacteria biofilms with different bacteria or thickness, etc. Thinking about all the ways a new aquarium surface can develop or not develop nuisance algae.

I have heard coralline algae effect. Seems reasonably straightforward to test

Not on the subject although kind of in the subject also but have you ever considered studying the different between cycling a aquarium with inorganic vs Organic matter. Basically the bottled nitrifying vs the shrimp, many older reefers prefer the shrimp method and will say that this is one of the best ways to cycle a aquarium, could the difference be that the shrimp is promoting heterotrophic bacteria and the bottled method is promoting nitrifying only, at some point organic matter will have to be introduced to that thank and change the microbiology of that new tank. This could be one of the reasons some will get more uglies stage than others, I read that many experienced reefers will actually prefer to start they’re tanks with heterotrophic bacteria for that same reason and add phosphates to aid the bacterial growth.

the results of this this could be the following:

1. heterotrophic bacteria could be ideal to set up quarantine tanks were you want a bacteria that will remove ammonia faster than other strains available, although C N P would have to be available at all times making the process complicated for some.

2. heterotrophic bacteria in the water column could be more effective at stripping a new system from ammonia in comparison to nitrifying autotrophic bacteria. The difference here is that heterotrophic bacteria can multiply every 5 to 20 minutes and nitrifying autotrophs will require 16 hours to multiply. Again C N and P would have to be available for the bacteria to be able to be effective.

3. excess skimming could be detrimental to a new tank as it would be removing beneficial bacteria from the water column and allowing for algaes to have more ammonia available.

I think I will be running this tests on the other thread just wondering if anyone would like to collaborate on the findings.

 

[Dan_P]

Not on the subject although kind of in the subject also but have you ever considered studying the different between cycling a aquarium with inorganic vs Organic matter. Basically the bottled nitrifying vs the shrimp, many older reefers prefer the shrimp method and will say that this is one of the best ways to cycle a aquarium, could the difference be that the shrimp is promoting heterotrophic bacteria and the bottled method is promoting nitrifying only, at some point organic matter will have to be introduced to that thank and change the microbiology of that new tank. This could be one of the reasons some will get more uglies stage than others, I read that many experienced reefers will actually prefer to start they’re tanks with heterotrophic bacteria for that same reason and add phosphates to aid the bacterial growth.

the results of this this could be the following:

1. heterotrophic bacteria could be ideal to set up quarantine tanks were you want a bacteria that will remove ammonia faster than other strains available, although C N P would have to be available at all times making the process complicated for some.

2. heterotrophic bacteria in the water column could be more effective at stripping a new system from ammonia in comparison to nitrifying autotrophic bacteria. The difference here is that heterotrophic bacteria can multiply every 5 to 20 minutes and nitrifying autotrophs will require 16 hours to multiply. Again C N and P would have to be available for the bacteria to be able to be effective.

3. excess skimming could be detrimental to a new tank as it would be removing beneficial bacteria from the water column and allowing for algaes to have more ammonia available.

I think I will be running this tests on the other thread just wondering if anyone would like to collaborate on the findings.

This is an important observation.! Thanks for reminding me about the two methods. This gives me a way to start the bacteria biofilm in an aquarium relavent manner.

I have been studying the settlement and development of mixed algae cultures on clean surfaces. My next step is looking at settlement/development on various biofilms. So, you can see just how useful your reminder is.

Dan