Ghost feeding is a myth perpetuated only in web forums

So the claim is that bacteria levels will stay the same without ghost feeding? I'm not sure I'm buying that. Myth, or not, if I am ever presented with the situation, I will throw in a pinch of food every so often. We are talking a few cents worth of food.

My established 240g sat fallow for about four months (about two years ago). I did not ghost feed, but did dose ammonia prior to adding fish, just to see how fast it would process. It took about 48hrs when it originally took about 18 after cycling. I'm no scientist, but it seems like something happened there.
 
So if I take the statement as true, "a bacterial colony will thrive in a "fallow" tank without external input of food", my questions is; what else is feeding that bacterial colony and maintaining its numbers? Just off the top of my head, that would indicate to me that something else in the tank is decomposing and providing the food to maintain the colony. In other words, something else is not getting fed and is dying, say amphipods and copepods or the like, which I don't really want to lose either, so back to feeding the "fallow" tank.
 
It's pretty clear that without a food source like 'biological fixation', you would be limiting nitrifying bacteria. Without ghost feeding you limit not just bacteria but other organisms that support bacteria. Atmospheric fixation doesn't quite happen in our homes the way it does in nature. To retain the biologic balance that was established, it only makes sense(to me) to ghost feed without other sources of ammonia?

http://www.biology-pages.info/N/NitrogenCycle.html
 
My claim is substantiated in the large threads we run regarding full tank cleanings, skip cycles, and all manner of bac control

By sending null hunters on a link search it reinforces how we get those results on the big threads. No links needed by us to keep churning out tanks knowing that bac self support when kept wet... if I don't post links, don't let that hold y'all back :)

I've setup tanks after long fallow periods of no ghost feeding using live rock, it's good discussion material to see how live rock is actually the feed, when we withhold
Do I understand correctly that you're citing threads as scientific proof or evidence of your claim, but other threads that describe ghost feeding that do not support your claim are not evidence?
 
If ghost feeding is required, how can the bacteria in a bottle product have a shelf life of years? In order for these products to work the bacteria must be able to stay alive and functioning without a food source for very long periods of time and no outside interaction.

In my opinion the issue is that not all bacteria are the same. We don't all have the same strains of nitrifying bacteria in our tanks. Is it possible that some tanks have smaller populations of the longer lived variety and others the shorter lived variety? I would think so.
 
wanted to show that its not easy to find links that say ghost feeding is required, there are none posted so far. I was -asking- for links, not offering them.



again don't let my non linking stop a counterclaim link. If you aren't sold by the claim, and aren't having to run any big access threads whats the harm?-nothing is on the line for your claim that feeding is required and no other sources of support exist minus our fish feed. we will begin losing tanks massively if our bac calcs are off.

http://reef2reef.com/threads/new-ta...d-cocktail-shrimp-live-rock-no-shrimp.214618/


and

http://reef2reef.com/threads/the-of...ead-aka-one-against-many.230281/#post-2681445

all that work and tank access is set around bacteria doing what they do, without our help, once established. its about not redundantly cycling an already-cycled tank...ghost feeding is redundantly organic bombing a tank for no reason just like using rotten shrimp to cycle live rock is possible, but not accurate.

the reason we don't need to factor bacteria in any way once hydrated across reefing is for the reasons mentioned above...this extends to include totally unassisted cycling of active surface area, fallow periods, tank cleaning, air exposure on and on.

The ghost feeding myth is part of the old set of claims that doing full water changes removes critical measurable bacteria, UV, etc. its part of the old set that aquarists control the critical bac levels by what they offer, or not offer, and from that line of thinking many aspects of the hobby were built. the new ways of keeping sandbeds cleaned vs stored full of nitrate came about due to being freer with bacteria than once told.

We haven't acknowledged one bit the extra ways bacteria gain and access feed anyway during hydration, that's literally been skipped over. part of the link hunting to state ghost feeding is required will uncover those alt pathways, and none are posted so far :)
For one, the reason large water changes don't marginally impact beneficial bacteria populations is due to the fact that the preponderance of these microorganisms do not live in the water column
 
If ghost feeding is required, how can the bacteria in a bottle product have a shelf life of years? In order for these products to work the bacteria must be able to stay alive and functioning without a food source for very long periods of time and no outside interaction.

In my opinion the issue is that not all bacteria are the same. We don't all have the same strains of nitrifying bacteria in our tanks. Is it possible that some tanks have smaller populations of the longer lived variety and others the shorter lived variety? I would think so.
There is a shelf life with bottle bacteria. I feel like we've talked about this before? :confused:
 
There is a shelf life with bottle bacteria. I feel like we've talked about this before? :confused:

We did, on the ways that bacteria can survive harsh conditions.

The shelf life on most bottled bacteria is around a year. That is still a very long time without a fresh food source.
 
What are the alternate feed sources mentioned so far? Wanted to make sure we don't lose sight of that or continually overlook it. I read that download above and didn't get that takeaway at all. Post which parts were relevant...

just to calm the link wars lol lets consider how nitrifiers can self sustain and feed, what are the alternate sources of feed we can find or know about?

non filtration bac associates are one, ya'll add some


tank organics are another, already stored up
 
We did, on the ways that bacteria can survive harsh conditions.

The shelf life on most bottled bacteria is around a year. That is still a very long time without a fresh food source.
It's only a year if kept in cool dark places, to slow down the metabolic rate. If it were left outside in the bottle, it may not last a week depending on temperatures.
 
Brew, smart post there didn't think of that one, totally accurate call. First post i agree with here

The aquarist added those variables fox, what the bandwagon does is not ever factor them in strong claims :)

When the organics storer is also a ghost feeder, that's the heart of my original claim.
 
Last edited:
Brew, smart post there didn't think of that one, wow.
Maybe smart, maybe not. We really have no way of knowing what strains of bacteria are in these products and/or how they stabilize them. It could be taking people down the wrong path but I think it is something to at least consider.
 
Maybe smart, maybe not. We really have no way of knowing what strains of bacteria are in these products and/or how they stabilize them. It could be taking people down the wrong path but I think it is something to at least consider.
Most of it is Nitrospira. The process is called comammox.
 
i'll jump in that discussion, my background, Process Engineer with specialisation in bioprocess.
I have some expertise en cell culture, fermentation process and some other related fields, but these 2 relates to the current topic. our aquariums are like a small bioreactor, you have a bacterial population, a food source (amonia, nitrates,etc.. carbon).

The bacterial population once a tank is established / cycled will adapt to the avaialable nutrient. Once cycled you have all the bugs you want and need, population will fluctate depending of the surrounding envionment (food (carbone, nitrates), and env. conditions (aerobic, anaerobic, Temp, pH, etc) ). In our tank, 1 type of bacteria cannot process amonia nitrites nitrates, typically different types of bacteria will process different type of 'food', that's the principle of cycling a tank, getting all the needed bugs.
It's true that if you don't feed, bactrial population will decrease. If you feed it will increase. But their is a lag time between low population and high population, once the lag phase is passed, bacterial growth is exponentional, it will grow until it's food source becomes the limiting factor, the death rate will match the new cells, that's where you want your aquarium to be. If the food source is depleted the population will decrease, it can happen drasticaly, and you don't want that to happen, dead cell will generate poluent in the water column. Note that the rate limiting factor could be O2 (oxygen) or something else, think about too much food = exponential growth = less oxygen in the system. In a bioreactor, we can control cell growth rate on nutrient or O2 availability, we try to optimize both.

The risk here, if the food source exceed the bacterial capacity to transform amonia and other poluents to their less toxic by-product, an aquarium could face the equivalent of a mini-cycle, build-up of residus,etc by the time the lag phase is passed.
You also don't want a huge load of bacteria to die of starvation, this will release poluent in the water colomn.

It would be preferable to maintain a constant bacterial population and have a stable system.

as an exemple, you have an established aquarium with many fish (constant system or in equilibrium). if you remove your fish (food source = poop) for a prolonge period of time, you should be feeding your system to maintain your bacterial population if you want to reintroduce the fish all at once. if you don't feed, you have the risk of introduciing a lot of waste to process without the proper bacterial population. your system will get back into an equilibrium state, but it can take some time (think about build up, amonia impact on fish,etc).

and bacteria are also a food source for the micro fauna and the ecosystem, another argument to keep system stable.

i don't know if i helped or not, i stated some already known information, but i could relate some of our aquarium reality to my professional 'expertise' just trying to feed the discussion.

:)
 
In our tank, 1 type of bacteria cannot process amonia nitrites nitrates, typically different types of bacteria will process different type of 'food', that's the principle of cycling a tank, getting all the needed bugs.
This is incorrect. Nitrospira was found to convert ammonia to nitrites and nitrites to nitrates.
 
This is incorrect. Nitrospira was found to convert ammonia to nitrites and nitrites to nitrates.

+1
From an abstract of paper submitted to the Nature scientific journal.

"Nitrification, the oxidation of ammonia via nitrite to nitrate, has always been considered to be a two-step process catalysed by chemolithoautotrophic microorganisms oxidizing either ammonia or nitrite. No known nitrifier carries out both steps, although complete nitrification should be energetically advantageous. This functional separation has puzzled microbiologists for a century. Here we report on the discovery and cultivation of a completely nitrifying bacterium from the genusNitrospira, a globally distributed group of nitrite oxidizers. The genome of this chemolithoautotrophic organism encodes the pathways both for ammonia and nitrite oxidation, which are concomitantly activated during growth by ammonia oxidation to nitrate. Genes affiliated with the phylogenetically distinct ammonia monooxygenase and hydroxylamine dehydrogenase genes of Nitrospira are present in many environments and were retrieved on Nitrospira-contigs in new metagenomes from engineered systems. These findings fundamentally change our picture of nitrification and point to completely nitrifying Nitrospira as key components of nitrogen-cycling microbial communities."
 
This is incorrect. Nitrospira was found to convert ammonia to nitrites and nitrites to nitrates.
you really want me to make a swab on my live rock to prove to you that you have many many many types of bacteria that convert your amonia / nitrites / nitrates... there'S toons of denitrifing bacteria in our environment.
i also use typically, because i did not want to make a bold statement, and you are right, some bacteria have multiple food source.

it's easy to take one sentence and say it's incorrect, you can stick to that. but i try to generalized to make 'simple' representation of a bioprocess.

my point was, in your system you have zillions of bactria, yes Nitrospira is most probably there and probably prevalent vs others, but your aquarium is not a monoculture and other bacteria are there. some will convert only amonia, some only nitrate... some will not eat any nitrates or amonia and will feed on something else.

unless you prove me you have a Nitrospira monoculture in your tank, i think my reasoning was mostly correct. (it has been my job for the past 20 years)
 
Last edited:

IF YOU HAD TO TAKE A REEFING EXAM, WOULD YOU PASS?

  • Yes!

    Votes: 32 45.7%
  • Not yet, but I have one that I want to buy in mind!

    Votes: 9 12.9%
  • No.

    Votes: 26 37.1%
  • Other (please explain).

    Votes: 3 4.3%
Back
Top