Ghost feeding is a myth perpetuated only in web forums

[Aaron Stone]

Brew12 does have a good point, but I am inclined to follow reeferfoxx's line of thinking that the metabolic rate of the bacteria is greatly increased in the tank versus, and therefore the longevity greatly decreased.

As far as existing "organic stores" those could be anything from micro fauna dying off from lack of food, to the proverbial organic "sludge" inherent in a system. I for one want to limit the die off in the tank, macro or micro, and existing sludge is a finite variable that cannot be controlled to

 

[reeferfoxx]

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.

No, i agree there are MANY types of bacteria that work together to perform the nitrogen cycle, yada yada. You stated though, there isn't one bacteria that can do it. BUT...there is...

 

[reeferfoxx]

(it has been my job for the past 20 years)

Nitrospira is a relatively new finding. If that says something. I'm not holding it against you.

 

[4FordFamily]

I had nothing to prove though, the ghost feeders did. the writing is def meant to challenge a strongly held stance... just like skipping a cycle is for many.

can anyone at least post a forum link like I did above where ghost feeding was required, and the alt outcome would have been measured ammonia since we didn't feed during X timeframe in the presence of live rock, organic stores, and alt feed sources? clearly we aren't getting any studies, so we can at least read the forum ones.

anything ive said so far has been tested in others tanks not just mine, and we collected those outcomes.

the way I see this:

ghost feeding is required since you didn't post any formal links sayings its not

I posted links saying its not for sure, but they didn't come from google scholar. nobody on google scholar is doing tank moves and rip cleanings or id consult it more often


there are fallow threads to consult where keepers didn't ghost feed, so they weren't pumping organics into their tank for a 72 day run, they were on the right track. the reintroduction of fish went without a hitch, they knew the active surface area was plenty ready after a few mos of ich starving.

we also try to turn out live rock transporters who do not try to recycle the live rocks after they move place to place, or add bacteria back to them...to me this is streamlining the real nature of bacteria in our tanks and ghost feeding is archaic pending any type of link at all- forum or not.


live rocks kept in good water for mos and mos will still pass a digestion test after feeding was withheld, to me that's brazen proof that the feeding wasn't required.

**the exact same firmness of claims are made in threads where we must not rinse sandbeds due to loss of critical bac

Well since we are quoting largely anecdotal "evidence" anyway, I left my tang tank fallow 83 days while treating my 10 tangs, 3 angels, and two wrasse in a large qt tank. This is obviously a very well stocked tank. I ghost fed maybe twice in that period which I am sure did virtually nothing. It fed my shrimp which was my goal. I simply forgot to ghost feed I am busy as heck these days and have 4 tanks.

Anyway, my biofilter sucesfully kept nitrates around 10-30 with monthly water changes of around 40% pre-fallow period. Upon re-adding my fish my nitrates went rose from 5-10 just before re-addition to 40-50 within only two weeks.

 

[reeferfoxx]

Well since we are quoting largely anecdotal "evidence" anyway, I left my tang tank fallow 83 days while treating my 10 tangs, 3 angels, and two wrasse in a large qt tank. This is obviously a very well stocked tank. I ghost fed maybe twice in that period which I am sure did virtually nothing. It fed my shrimp which was my goal. I simply forgot to ghost feed I am busy as heck these days and have 4 tanks.

Anyway, my biofilter sucesfully kept nitrates around 10-30 with monthly water changes of around 40% pre-fallow period. Upon re-adding my fish my nitrates went rose from 5-10 just before re-addition to 40-50 within only two weeks.

Everything poops. So as long as the tiny tank inhabitants had some type of food source, the nitrogen cycle was able to maintain itself? Right?

 

[Brew12]

Brew12 does have a good point, but I am inclined to follow reeferfoxx's line of thinking that the metabolic rate of the bacteria is greatly increased in the tank versus, and therefore the longevity greatly decreased.

I think this is the missing variable. When a food source is removed the metabolic rate of most bacteria greatly slows and they completely stop reproducing. The question I can't seem to find the answer to is just how long they can live in an aquarium in this reduced state. I know they can die quickly under changes of pH and temperature. Many are light sensitive. I just can't find any reputable information on how long the "typical" nitrifying bacteria can survive in the absence of food.

 

[reeferfoxx]

I think this is the missing variable. When a food source is removed the metabolic rate of most bacteria greatly slows and they completely stop reproducing. The question I can't seem to find the answer to is just how long they can live in an aquarium in this reduced state. I know they can die quickly under changes of pH and temperature. Many are light sensitive. I just can't find any reputable information on how long the "typical" nitrifying bacteria can survive in the absence of food.

According to Brandon, it doesn't need food?

 

[4FordFamily]

Everything poops. So as long as the tiny tank inhabitants had some type of food source, the nitrogen cycle was able to maintain itself? Right?

That makes sense, although based on my story above, it appears that my bioload capacity was decreased by my fallow period which indicates to me that perhaps I should have ghost fed better. It sort of implies the opposite of the op's hypothesis although, like the counter argument, is highly anecdotal. I also didn't control for other variables as this was not a scientific experiment, merely another observation.

 

[Brew12]

According to Brandon, it doesn't need food?

And they don't for a period of time.... the question is what that period of time is. Is it hours, days, months?

 

[Aaron Stone]

I think this is the missing variable. When a food source is removed the metabolic rate of most bacteria greatly slows and they completely stop reproducing. The question I can't seem to find the answer to is just how long they can live in an aquarium in this reduced state. I know they can die quickly under changes of pH and temperature. Many are light sensitive. I just can't find any reputable information on how long the "typical" nitrifying bacteria can survive in the absence of food.

Agreed

 

[reeferfoxx]

You take a new tank, no sand with dry rock. You add bottled bacteria like Bio-Spira. Done. Nitrogen cycle is there. However, if you don't feed the newly added bacteria, it is then reduced to nothing?

You take a new tank with Live rock, no sand. Bacteria colony is already there. If you don't ghost feed the tank, the live rock inhabitants die which provide food for the bacteria. Like Brew asked, how long before it dies?

You take a tank with Live rock, established sand and a lot of nutrients. You stop feeding.. I would say the bacteria would live for quite some time. But would reduce efficiency greatly due to die off and the process of breaking everything down.

 

[david p.]

Nitrospira is a relatively new finding. If that says something. I'm not holding it against you.

what can i say... i tryed to summarize in 10 lines and simplify complex systems.
Nitrospira & Nitrobacter, or i should say the microflore in bioprocess like wastewater treatment, are known to process nitrates, nitrites and amonia (it's a fact for decades.. half a century). I have not read your article on that new 'finding', it's probably that they have been able to demonstate or repoduce in controled conditions what happens in the denitrifaction process.

anyway, i wanted to contribute, but clearly i'm not qualified to do so here.

 

[Brew12]

what can i say... i tryed to summarize in 10 lines and simplify complex systems.
Nitrospira & Nitrobacter, or i should say the microflore in bioprocess like wastewater treatment, are known to process nitrates, nitrites and amonia (it's a fact for decades.. half a century). I have not read your article on that new 'finding', it's probably that they have been able to demonstate or repoduce in controled conditions what happens in the denitrifaction process.

anyway, i wanted to contribute, but clearly i'm not qualified to do so here.

I don't think that was the purpose of his post. Only to introduce you to a fairly new discovery that you may not have been aware of. You are probably more qualified than any of us and your contribution was appreciated!

 

[reeferfoxx]

what can i say... i tryed to summarize in 10 lines and simplify complex systems.
Nitrospira & Nitrobacter, or i should say the microflore in bioprocess like wastewater treatment, are known to process nitrates, nitrites and amonia (it's a fact for decades.. half a century). I have not read your article on that new 'finding', it's probably that they have been able to demonstate or repoduce in controled conditions what happens in the denitrifaction process.

anyway, i wanted to contribute, but clearly i'm not qualified to do so here.

You are a huge contribution to this thread. Im not discrediting you at all. It was just that one little semantic that needed to be stated. Thats all.

 

[Aaron Stone]

Can you clarify that?

 

[Aaron Stone]

Is bacteria reduction due to shrinking in size or numbers?

Sorry, clarify this. Thanks.

 

[reeferfoxx]

Sorry, clarify this. Thanks.

That was a miss type. I was responding to an earlier post that was clarified. This forum sometimes saves words being typed almost instantly. I didnt notice it was being posted while i was quoting. The post was edited.

 

[reeferfoxx]

So has debunking the "ghost feeding" "myth" been debunked?

 

[Brew12]

So has debunking the "ghost feeding" "myth" been debunked?

I'm not sure. Heck, I think I could come up with a solid argument on both sides. And I think it may just come down to how diverse a tanks bacteria strains are that perform the nitrification. I have a feeling this is one of those things that you could test 8 times and come up with different results each time.
Love the topic though because it does really inspire some deep thinking.

 

[Joshky]

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.

Who's to say the bacterial population doesn't decrease the longer it sits on the shelf? You've brought up many good points, just throwing this one out there.