Probiotics, What?

[wave98]

Geeze rugie, It would be nice if we could get on with a discussion here, and I for one, am behind you on this one, at least as far as bringing the information into the light, but gosh PEOPLE, can't we relax here a little bit, and discuss the material at hand without "chucking spears" all over the place? ! ! ! !

ooPS, I really have to agree with MAXX here, let's bring in some "good" information on this.

well I will leave some space for your little wipes to inject their "I agree with you MAXX"

So "I'm behind you on this", and now I'm a "little wipe"?

I think I'm going to have a "crying spell"!!!

At least you have offered some information here finally, And I applaud you for that. I happen to run a sand bed myself, and I don't see why this discussion has to degrade into a "mechanical VS boilogical" debate. I use a skimmer currently, and will be adding other mechanical systems eventually ( and prudently ).

Why should we have to think in terms of "one" VS "the other"? I will be happy if I can learn enough from this thread, and about probiotics in general, to have a potential solution, if something was "going bad" in my tank.

I'm a little bit concerned about "prophylactic use" because it sounds like I would be avoiding the development of a "stable system" that is self sustaining. I suppose the same case might be given for dosing calcium, and we "all" do that.

I am certianly curious about bacterial strains that are not expected to be present from our live rock, or sand, but which might improve their functionality. It would be preferable for me anyway, if they could be added to the system, and then find thier own niche there without needing continual dosing.

Thanks rugie, for your explanation of your additive use. Now I'll get back to reading those links I was enjoying when the "flaming" interrupted me.

> Wave98

 

[Scooterman]

Nothing wrong with learning about probiotics or comparing them, it may help someone else as long as we're learning or discussing on the subject it is all good.

 

[mojoreef]

Ok folks lets keep this thread polite or not at all. At RF we love to discuss all thing Aquaria but we like to do it with out the my way or the hyway approach. If someone does not agree with you..ah well.

Anyway... I still cant see how this would have a possitive effect on a reef tank. Bacteria are not an export system. they do not remove a product (N,P) from a system, they simple alter their forms and/or bind them. Having them bloom (by dosing them) and then dieing off (when they run out of food) equates to zero net gain with the exception of a micro fraction burned off as energy. Bacteria are cyclers.
In the products listed it talks about several things. One says it oxidizes Hydrogen sulfide. Ok this is a simple thing where both aerobes and anerobes work in cooperative sequences, BUT whats the end product?? cytoplasmic sulfur granules and guess what? it all goes back into cycle again and once again nothing is exported but rather it just continues to create an ever growing cycle until the system cant support it anymore.
This goes for every form of bacterial chemical pathways in a marine system. Nitrogen cycle has a bit of a chance as its end form is a gas which can escape, but in 99% of the cases in our tanks it cant make it that far.
Bacteria will not hide out in the background waiting for something to maybe happen. A bacterial population is based on the ammount of food that is available to it. No food = No bacteria. So one cannot simple dose the stuff and expect it to sit their and wait..not going to happen.
Once again in our systems we all hae a variety of bacteria. Each bacterial population is based on the ammount of food that it can use. period. If say a person has a tank with a old DSB then its going to have a higher population of a partiular bacteria strain then say what another persons tank would have with out the bed.
Can a person dose bacteria?? Sure you can! but as with most things its going to have both negative and positive results. When one keeps an artifically high population of bacteria (as in more bacteria then available food to feed it) then at some point when you stop or hit a max point your going to have nutrient issues. Example: joe blow dosed bacteria on day one. the bacteria go to town and quickly (insteed of a normal speed) begin to reduce stuff (pending on the bacterial strain), then they die when to food is gone, day two of doseing allows the new bacteria to go after what the old bacteria released and whatever else was bound to thier matrix. This continues and continues as you are never really eporting the bacteria or the compounds they are reducing/oxidizing. This just continues to make the cycle bigger and bigger. If you discontinue the dosing your going to have a bunch of dead bacteria with not enough food source to support it, thus a bloom of algae will occur. Eventually the system will return to a form of static but truely why bother?? Eliminate the source and you eliminate having to go down a route you cannot control.


Mike

 

[rugie]

probiotics, what?

MIKE,

So one cannot simple dose the stuff and expect it to sit their and wait..not going to happen.

Can a person dose bacteria?? Sure you can! but as with most things its going to have both negative and positive results. When one keeps an artifically high population of bacteria (as in more bacteria then available food to feed it) then at some point when you stop or hit a max point your going to have nutrient issues.

Example: joe blow dosed bacteria on day one. the bacteria go to town and quickly (insteed of a normal speed) begin to reduce stuff (pending on the bacterial strain), then they die when to food is gone, day two of doseing allows the new bacteria to go after what the old bacteria released and whatever else was bound to thier matrix. This continues and continues as you are never really eporting the bacteria or the compounds they are reducing/oxidizing. This just continues to make the cycle bigger and bigger. If you discontinue the dosing your going to have a bunch of dead bacteria with not enough food source to support it,

In my posts I indicate the use of a skimmer. I have said I do not have any problems with the prudent use of a skimmer. (only extreme hard skimming) I said I skim for four hrs each day, this is my solution (as would be obvious) to exporting all those tons of dead bacteria that starved to death. it does also remove much sulfur and protein that would cause
an artificial increase in bacteria there by reducing the need for a constant increase/decrease of the bacteria. mike you speak again of bacteria die off, I have responded to it prior and I will reiterate. bacteria when "running out of food"
do not crash "boom" instant death of billions of bacteria, bacteria have incredibly short life spans .they are in a state of constant flux, the divide they die all within minutes. when the "food" is on the ebb division slows ,and becomes almost static. as I said prior, bacteria under favorable conditions do not die off completely, they use the bio films as a life sustaining medium. they can increase their populations to uncountable numbers in a few hours when they are needed, an abundance of "food" is not a prerequisite there are other triggers that spur their increase in numbers, such as the cast off materials of other bacteria. these cast offs are not their "food" but are antagonists to them. a tank such as you indicate with all those dying bacteria on an ongoing basis would not be real, there are tanks that meet with disaster, such as malfunction of mechanical aids, power outages. accidents,
going away on vac and the nanny failing you, unexplained die off of a large animal, (such as a large clam or fish) etc. but most tanks are not this cesspool type of reef aquarium. an artificially high population is not needed or recommended and for that matter not even possible. after the initial dose of a probiotic, the maintenance dose is very small and usually done weekly. not dumped in willy nilly. The initial dose is a bit higher to attempt to insure that a reasonable number exist from the start. it is an ongoing procedure but so are the mechanicals. but with probiotics there is diversity present (bacteria ARE A FOOD SCOURCE for a wide array of lifeforms in our tanks. I have asked nikki (no answer yet) and now you! what are the extent of filtration items on your aquaria? your last post is almost a duplicate of your earlier post. the thread is unnecessary long due to rehashing of the same statements repeatedly. requiring on my part a lot of retyping posts. giving an indication of chasing ones tail, beating a dead horse, etc gman0526 presented a nice challenging post and hopefully I responded in an informative manner. I hope he reads this post as it contains even more info pertinent to his post

 

[rugie]

Mojoreef, your reply welcome.

 

[Maxx]

In my posts I indicate the use of a skimmer. I have said I do not have any problems with the prudent use of a skimmer. (only extreme hard skimming) I said I skim for four hrs each day, this is my solution (as would be obvious) to exporting all those tons of dead bacteria that starved to death.

bacteria have incredibly short life spans .they are in a state of constant flux, the divide they die all within minutes. when the "food" is on the ebb division slows ,and becomes almost static. as I said prior, bacteria under favorable conditions do not die off completely, they use the bio films as a life sustaining medium.

Rugie,
how does the bacteria get to your skimmer for removal if they are encased in the biofilm? What consititutes hard skimming to you?
I run a Euro-Reef skimmer on my tank 24-7. It gets shut down briefly for cleaning on a weekly basis, approximately 15 minutes or so a week. Other than the skimmer, I run a cannister filter for Carbon, a phosban reactor for Phospahate removal, my live rock takes care of the biological, and I do water changes. Do these consitute hard skimming or filtration to you?
Nick

 

[mojoreef]

In my posts I indicate the use of a skimmer. I have said I do not have any problems with the prudent use of a skimmer. (only extreme hard skimming) I said I skim for four hrs each day, this is my solution (as would be obvious) to exporting all those tons of dead bacteria that starved to death.

I actually never asked about your skimmer or mentioned mine. So what you are advocating is that you dose bacteria to bind and reduce nutrients and then skimm them off when they have deceased?? Seems complicated and expensive to me Rugie. Bacteria that are available to the skimmer are attached to detritus/waste and a variety of particulate matter, why not just remove and skimm that and you can save yourself the expence??

it does also remove much sulfur and protein that would cause
an artificial increase in bacteria there by reducing the need for a constant increase/decrease of the bacteria

Are you talking about your skimmer or the bacteria? if bacteria please let me know how it removes either?

bacteria when "running out of food"
do not crash "boom" instant death of billions of bacteria, bacteria have incredibly short life spans .they are in a state of constant flux, the divide they die all within minutes.

Yes they are always in a state of flux, the flux is dependant on thier food source. And yes if thier is no food source the bacteria all die back to a population that can be sustained by the available food.

I said prior, bacteria under favorable conditions do not die off completely, they use the bio films as a life sustaining medium.

No they die back. Biofilms are micro enviroments which bacteria form to while releasing thier enzymes, they may contain some micro ammount of food but no where enough to sustain them for any period of time.

they can increase their populations to uncountable numbers in a few hours when they are needed

Correct!! so why dose them when they have this ability??

these cast offs are not their "food" but are antagonists to them.

Actually bacterial flock can also be a food source to some bacterial strains. I have never heard any info on them being an antagonist, do you have some literature on this topic??

what are the extent of filtration items on your aquaria?

Extreme skimming, ozone, UV, carbon and LR.

your last post is almost a duplicate of your earlier post. the thread is unnecessary long due to rehashing of the same statements repeatedly. requiring on my part a lot of retyping posts. giving an indication of chasing ones tail, beating a dead horse

True it is close, What I dont understand is how you are not understanding what I am saying?? Bacterial cycles, biochemistry and simular are all well researched topics and thousands of studies have been done on them I suggest doing a little research on marine bacteria (and not ter..) and you can learn a little bit about thier behavior and life cycle. It might help you to understand what I am talking about.


Mike

 

[rugie]

probiotics, what?

MAXX, tad short of time till later tomorrow but will try to respond to you now. the bacteria are those that have "died"
and many millions more that are viable, they, to a point are expendable in that the dosing has increased their numbers dramatically, those on the bio film are not readily subject to skimming, uva and some other methods, but except for other means, such as copper, various meds, antibacterials etc. they are at risk of being reduced to ineffectiveness. as I said prior bacteria rarely are completely destroyed but can be when radical disinfectings are applied.
(I can explain that further if you like). a skimmer running 24/7 (unless it is way under sized), to me is hard skimming. constant running of carbon will strip a tank of many valuable minerals/ nutrients. I run carbon @ 1 tsp/10 gal of actual water volume once each month for a period of 5-7 days. the aluminum based phos removers are toxic, the iron oxides are much better.

 

[MikeS]

a skimmer running 24/7 (unless it is way under sized), to me is hard skimming.

The concept of overskimming is somewhat controversial, but IMO I really don't think that it is possible to "overskim" a tank. Again look at NSW values....the water on the wild reef itself is pretty much devoid of saturated nutrients, these nutrients are tied up in the incredibly diverse food chain on the reef, one which is far to diverse to be replicated in our little glass boxes, and also one that really isn't bacterially driven on the reef anyway, and what little remains is dealt with by simple dilution...So really, corals are already used to dealing with water that is pretty low in saturated nutrients. And really, that's the meat and bones of this as far as I'm concerned...logically, we want to provide as near a reproduction of the natural habitat as we can for our corals....removal beats recycling....

constant running of carbon will strip a tank of many valuable minerals/ nutrients.

sure, it removes good and bad stuff....but it's a tradeoff that's worth it IMO. Regualr water changes will replace trace elements stripped by carbon, and the nutrient removal ability of the carbon IMO makes the good far outweigh the bad. I have tried all the different ways...no carbon, carbon periodically, and carbon full time....my tank does best with carbon 24/7...I have seen no ill effects by running carbon 24/7, and I've been doing it long enough that I hope I would have seen negative effects by now if I was going to....

the aluminum based phos (such as phos-ban) removers are toxic, the iron oxides are much better.

PhosBan is ferrous oxide based, not aluminium based. I have read articles concerning the toxicity of aluminium as a suggested photoinhibitor in corals, but I have yet to see a study that directly links aluminium based phosphate removers themselves to coral mortality....if you know of one I'd like to see it...I've been using aluminium based phosphate removers in my reef for over 5 years, I have observed no ill effects from their use as of yet.

MikeS

 

[rugie]

mikeS, sorry! I was thinking about phos ban and that is what I typed. you are correct phos ban is iron oxide. your logic is also correct. most note-ably when you make comparisons to the sea vs our "glass boxes" are you saying that the wild reef is nutrient poor? and that is how you/we should run our reef tanks? It is believed that indeed the wild reef is bacteria driven (the sun and it's light being #1) is is found that the sea grasses, (manatee etc) along with the mangroves provide uncountable amounts of bacteria to the sea and reefs if it were not for this bacteria the zoo-plankton would not flourish, the Zoe would not flourish and life in the sea would suffer if not even become extinct.. life on earth is light and bacteria driven. You say!--- So really, corals are already used to dealing with water that is pretty low in saturated nutrients. And really, that's the meat and bones of this as far as I'm concerned...logically, we want to provide as near a reproduction of the natural habitat as we can for our corals....removal beats recycling.... [ENQUOTE] * my thoughts are why remove it if it can be of value? skim-mate appears to be a foul mess, but it contains many bacteria, nematodes and skimmed out larval life forms including the fry of ornamental shrimp, hermit crabs, veliger etc these plankton are readily assimilated by certain coral, live rock
and substrate.

 

[rugie]

mojoreef, your last paragraph in your most recent post indicates that you are more verses on bacteria than I. I have the same problem in not understanding what you are saying. lets look at understanding.

I actually never asked about your skimmer or mentioned mine.

I never said "you asked about my skimmer"

I have asked nikki (no answer yet) and now you! what are the extent of filtration items on your aquaria?

So what you are advocating is that you dose bacteria to bind and reduce nutrients and then skimm them off when they have deceased?? Seems complicated and expensive to me Rugie. Bacteria that are available to the skimmer are attached to detritus/waste and a variety of particulate matter, why not just remove and skimm that and you can save yourself the expence??

my statement there was in jest to your statement---

Example: joe blow dosed bacteria on day one. the bacteria go to town and quickly (insteed of a normal speed) begin to reduce stuff (pending on the bacterial strain), then they die when to food is gone, day two of doseing allows the new bacteria to go after what the old bacteria released and whatever else was bound to thier matrix. This continues and continues as you are never really eporting the bacteria or the compounds they are reducing/oxidizing. This just continues to make the cycle bigger and bigger. If you discontinue the dosing your going to have a bunch of dead bacteria with not enough food source to support it,

actually one does not need a food source if the bacteria are dead.

If you discontinue the dosing your going to have a bunch of dead bacteria with not enough food source to support it

it does also remove much sulfur and protein that would cause
an artificial increase in bacteria there by reducing the need for a constant increase/decrease of the bacteria

Are you talking about your skimmer or the bacteria? if bacteria please let me know how it removes either?

as would be obvious "IT" would refer to my skimmer, "It" being singular. "THEY" would refer to bacteria. as "they' being plural.

I said prior, bacteria under favorable conditions do not die off completely, they use the bio films as a life sustaining medium.

No they die back. Biofilms are micro enviroments which bacteria form to while releasing thier enzymes, they may contain some micro ammount of food but no where enough to sustain them for any period of time.

they can increase their populations to uncountable numbers in a few hours when they are needed

Correct!! so why dose them when they have this ability??

The initial dose is a bit higher to attempt to insure that a reasonable number exist from the start. it is an ongoing procedure but so are the mechanicals. but with probiotics there is diversity present (bacteria ARE A FOOD SCOURCE for a wide array of lifeforms in our tanks

these cast offs are not their "food" but are antagonists to them

Actually bacterial flock can also be a food source to some bacterial strains. I have never heard any info on them being an antagonist, do you have some literature on this topic??

an antagonist is an entity that interrupts a passive state.

your last post is almost a duplicate of your earlier post. the thread is unnecessary long due to rehashing of the same statements repeatedly. requiring on my part a lot of retyping posts. giving an indication of chasing ones tail, beating a dead horse

True it is close, What I dont understand is how you are not understanding what I am saying?? Bacterial cycles, biochemistry and simular are all well researched topics and thousands of studies have been done on them I suggest doing a little research on marine bacteria (and not ter..) and you can learn a little bit about thier behavior and life cycle. It might help you to understand what I am talking about.

(and not ter..)

What is the meaning of the above line?

from your statement it appears you are telling me that I lack knowledge of bacteria and that you possess an abundance of knowledge. I can only credit or discredit your knowledge on the content of your posts, it is obvious you have not a clue in understanding or you are not reading the text. about 60% of the posts in this thread are presented by me, and that is a lot of attention paid by me to this thread vs your 3-4 replies of rehashing. why do you feel the need to insult my intelligence and education of marine bacteria? perhaps you should take your own advice and not post if you have nothing to say/do not agree with a post. If you want me to go away why not just ban me from the site? it is your site but that does not give you license to be insulting. all this effort I put into trying to educate you is growing tedious. I am shocked at your inferences. Ban me or do not insult me any further with your input. :shock:
You may want to correct your spelling, your posts are barely understandable/readable.

 

[NaH2O]

Rugie - I am heading to work, so I don't have time to put up the post I want to at this moment, but I will get to it at some point later.

As per my filtration - I use heavy skimming, UV, and live rock.

What is the meaning of the above line?

It means...not terrestrial bacteria.

I have a couple of articles that I will link up, but I am running behind right now. You had mentioned Nitrobacter previously. It is not a marine bacteria. Nitrospira species are the nitrite oxidizers

Nitrospira: The real nitrite oxidizing bacteria in aquaria

Nitrospira, Not Nitrobacter....Again!

And in reference to Nitrosomonas....it has been isolated in marine environment, however, it is not the main ammonia oxidizing bacteria. It just happens to grow well in the lab. I believe Nitrosococcus is in greater abundance

What are the Ammonia Oxidizing Bacteria really?

You may want to correct your spelling, your posts are barely understandable/readable.

Ouch! Mojo may not spell the best, but his information has always been very strong.

 

[wave98]

Is there any "space left"? I want to agree with Mojo, and be one of his "little wipes".

"Uni-directional" education is inherently stagnant. The best of educations are invariably "a two way street"!

No more time right now, I have to get back to those links.

Happy Reef Keeping to all, and to all, "be nice". > Wave98

 

[Krish]

about 60% of the posts in this thread are presented by me, and that is a lot of attention paid by me to this thread vs your 3-4 replies of rehashing. why do you feel the need to insult my intelligence and education of marine bacteria? perhaps you should take your own advice and not post if you have nothing to say/do not agree with a post. If you want me to go away why not just ban me from the site? it is your site but that does not give you license to be insulting. all this effort I put into trying to educate you is growing tedious. I am shocked at your inferences. Ban me or do not insult me any further with your input.
You may want to correct your spelling, your posts are barely understandable/readable.

Rugie...I honestly don't think Mike meant anything towards you in a bad way. IMO, he's not that type of person and I find Mike to be quite knowledgeable and kind. I've also found you to be very knowledgeable as well and have enjoyed chatting with you via pm's because you seem to be a very kind individual. Nevertheless, having 2 educated people with different points of views on a particular subject doesn't make one smarter than the other and also IMO, doesn't give anyone the right to insult and throw jeers. I guess where the thread has already developed a lot of tension from earlier to present posts, it makes posting here a very sensitive situation. You can never tell a persons tone by the way they type and depending on your mood (whether biased or not at the time) it can send the wrong message. However arguing, as we all can see, is getting this thread no-where IMO. I hope we can have a good and clean discussion here once again. I personally have nothing to contribute to the thread because plain and simply, I don't know very much about the subject. Nevertheless, I can learn, and I am learning which means that one day, I may be able to offer my own points of views and get into some good discussions because I would have been mentally equipped from knowledge I have acquired here. Please guys...Let's get along. Don't let myself as well as others out there interested in learning, loose out on learning something valuable which pertains to a hobby we all try to enjoy. Please...Let's try to get along once again. (BTW...I'm not pointing any fingers here)

 

[wave98]

Krish to the rescue!!

Your a good man Krish, so are Mojo and Rugie and Maxx and Nikki and Scooterman and "Charly" and MikeS and everyone else. Sorry folks, I have a 7 "charachter" memory. I am really excited by this thread as well, and let's be honest here. Rugie has recieved as many "swipes" here as he has doled out, so it's not a one way street there either. He started the thread, and he is trying to discuss "Pro-biotics", so how about if we all discuss it, and end the debate?

Happy new day!! > let us all enjoy it!! > Wave98

 

[wrightme43]

Its all going to be ok. I have been reading along occasionally. I cant prove this, it is just a bit of knowledge that is floating around in my head. Trees use bacteria, and fungus around thier roots to more effiecently process and absorb nutirients from soil. Could corals do the same?
I also know that if I have grubs in my yard, I can use poison to kill them and every other thing it comes in contact with, or I can use nematodes to prey on them and then they will live in the soil and prevent reinfestation. Is this the concept your talking about here?

 

[wave98]

If that isn't a brilliant analogy, I don't know what is, and I'm not about to put some "garden stuff" in my tank, but it represents thinking, and that is what we as humans have evolved to do, and very well until we started watching the politicians and their antics, etc. . . . . . .

The reef keeping hobby is going to evolve, and it is these discussions that are going to be at the forefront of the "progress", that is why we are here at RF and elsewhere.

Kudos "WrightMe", EXCELLENT!!!!!

This is getting into "controlling" the bacteria, and some might say that it can't be done, but "we" are all doing it everyday in our own tanks, we just don't feel like were good enough at it yet.

"WE" will certianly get there!!

Thanks "rugie", let's go!! > Wave98

 

[mojoreef]

Rugie, All are welcome to post and create threads on this website. You will never be banned because you have an opposing opinion. In saying that you will also be challenged and questioned if your comments or posts make no sence and if the information you are posting could lead to people hurting their tanks. Basically you are not going to be able to make statements on things which are not correct unless you can offer some form of back up on them. At RF we have discussed virtually all so called taboo subjects and have never had any flame outs. Everytime someone here questions what you are saying you call them names and take digs at them instead of just offering proof of what you are saying. By prove I mean more then the ramblings on the side of a Mark Wiess product or product information from a bacteria supplier to the aquaculture industry. The links and information you offered from the aquaculture place is based on fish and shrimp hatcheries, thier problems and enviroments are far far different from our tanks. One can simply read what they say their bacterial strains do and find out the strain type, from thier it is easy to see that they will not have the exporting/cleansing effect you claim.
Also alot of your claims and links refer to non marine bacteria that operate completely differently. You claim in moment that all bacteria will die off in a matter of minutes, the next you say they wont. Then you say they will be skimmed off when their very nature is to be anaerobic and thus not available to the skimmer.
I have tried to be nice and ask you to look up some info on marine bacteria and namely the types that are refered to in your linking. This would give you an idea of why your reasoning doesnt work. Yet you choose the poor me kind of responce..ah well.
If you wish to discuss things here I would suggest to have the info to back up the claims you are making (beyond product advertising). This way we can have a two way conversation, instead of ignoring the info offered by others to help you.



MIke

 

[MikeS]

your logic is also correct. most note-ably when you make comparisons to the sea vs our "glass boxes" are you saying that the wild reef is nutrient poor? and that is how you/we should run our reef tanks?

Yes, and Yes. The reef isn't nutrient poor at all, but the water itself IS. Available nutrients are quickly tied up by the vastly complex food chain on the wild reef, and what little may remain is diluted greatly by the vast volume of water we are talking about here, rendering the water itself basically devoid of saturated nutrients on the reef. Now since we are trying to provide an environment in our tanks, where our corals, who have evloved and adapted to this type of environment, wouldn't it make sense to duplicate these conditions as closely as possible? Can you do it with bacteria? Not really, you are simply transforming and recycling these nutrients back into the system in most cases. This isn't to say they are not very important, they definatly are necessary for detoxification, but the bottom line is that they don't really export nutrients. Sure...some bacteria and their bound nutrients are removed with skimming, and bacteria in a new DSB will reduce nitrate into free nitrogen that gases out of the tank, but even this process will taper with time, and ammonium will be produced instead, simply recycling the nutrients back into the tank.

It is believed that indeed the wild reef is bacteria driven (the sun and it's light being #1) is is found that the sea grasses, (manatee etc) along with the mangroves provide uncountable amounts of bacteria to the sea and reefs if it were not for this bacteria the zoo-plankton would not flourish, the Zoe would not flourish and life in the sea would suffer if not even become extinct.. life on earth is light and bacteria driven.

Yes, I think we are all in agreement that bacteria are an absolutely essential link in the chain. But again, tiny glass box vs. the wild reef...:lol: . The bacteria found in the sea grass beds and mangrove swamp are in reality mostly feeding on leftovers, simply another organisim in a vastly complex food net, so to speak. The largest part of bacterial activity as it pertains to the food chain on the reef does not take place on the reef itself, or in the swamps or grass beds, it takes place in the deep, open water. And even here, these nutrients are not reduced, they are recycled.

my thoughts are why remove it if it can be of value? skim-mate appears to be a foul mess, but it contains many bacteria, nematodes and skimmed out larval life forms including the fry of ornamental shrimp, hermit crabs, veliger etc these plankton are readily assimilated by certain coral, live rock
and substrate.

Why remove it? Because you have these nutrients in a huge excess compared to the wild reef! Again back to the tiny glass box vs. the ocean... The bioload in even the most lighty stocked reef vs. gallons of water is many, many, many times greater than what you see in the wild, period. You are always going to be dealing with nutrients in excess, by the nature of the tank. You can skim, run carbon, do regular water changes, ect, ect, and you are still going to be dealing with an excess of nutrients compared to the reef in the wild. Sure, you may be removing bacteria, shrimp fry, planktonic life, ect....but you will be providing the corals with an environment they are most adapted to in the wild. Personally, I think it is impossible to strip a tank of nutrients entierly by using mechanical means. The skimmer keeps producing skimmate, doesn't it? Hmmm....I wonder why....

MikeS

 

[wave98]

The reef isn't nutrient poor at all, but the water itself IS. Available nutrients are quickly tied up by the vastly complex food chain on the wild reef, and what little may remain is diluted greatly by the vast volume of water we are talking about here, rendering the water itself basically devoid of saturated nutrients on the reef.

Well, yeah, pretty much, but this is true part of the time, in fact, a large part of the time, but not all of the time. High nutrient levels are experienced in nearly all wild reefs with variable frequency depending where they are, and these periods of high nutrient saturation are usually rather "short lived".

Now since we are trying to provide an environment in our tanks, where our corals, who have evloved and adapted to this type of environment, wouldn't it make sense to duplicate these conditions as closely as possible?

Yes, it would, but this attempted duplication should actually represent all of the nutrient satuaration conditions that occur in wild reefs, and not only the most common condition, which is of course "nutrient poor". Nutrient rich occurs as well, for short periods of time. This includes dissolved nutrients of course, as well as "solids".

Can you do it with bacteria?

Yes.

Not really, you are simply transforming and recycling these nutrients back into the system in most cases.

Well, that is true in many cases, but not in most cases, there are a lot of "cases". Look at LdrHawke for one with his version of "vodka dosing". He is pulling bacteria out of the system. This is a specialized system that he runs, and I understand that he is "dosing", but he is creating a "net export" just the same.

I am not endorsing that system here, but it is an example, just the same.

This isn't to say they are not very important, they definatly are necessary for detoxification, but the bottom line is that they don't really export nutrients.

"Bottom limes" are very interesting animals, they tend to "morph" every 3 to 9 months.

Sure...some bacteria and their bound nutrients are removed with skimming, and bacteria in a new DSB will reduce nitrate into free nitrogen that gases out of the tank, but even this process will taper with time, and ammonium will be produced instead, simply recycling the nutrients back into the tank.

Now that is a really big "animal", and TIME is an extremely "relative" term. Recycling is certianly not "simple".

Yes, I think we are all in agreement that bacteria are an absolutely essential link in the chain.

They sure are.

But again, tiny glass box vs. the wild reef...:lol: .

You still want to duplicate these conditions as closely as possible, right?

The bacteria found in the sea grass beds and mangrove swamp are in reality mostly feeding on leftovers, simply another organisim in a vastly complex food net, so to speak.

Exactly, and one man's junk is another man' treasure, so it is in the reef, and the ocean, and planet earth, and in the universe.

This is a "universal truth".

The largest part of bacterial activity as it pertains to the food chain on the reef does not take place on the reef itself, or in the swamps or grass beds, it takes place in the deep, open water. And even here, these nutrients are not reduced, they are recycled.

Really, I would like to hear more about that. I think you might have fallen off your stool here.

Why remove it? Because you have these nutrients in a huge excess compared to the wild reef! Again back to the tiny glass box vs. the ocean...

Yes, let's remove it!

The bioload in even the most lighty stocked reef vs. gallons of water is many, many, many times greater than what you see in the wild, period. You are always going to be dealing with nutrients in excess, by the nature of the tank.

You have not specified "dissolved" VS "solid" nutrients here, I think it would be prudent to do so.

You can skim, run carbon, do regular water changes, ect, ect, and you are still going to be dealing with an excess of nutrients compared to the reef in the wild.

If you have this "excess" then quit over feeding.

Sure, you may be removing bacteria, shrimp fry, planktonic life, ect....but you will be providing the corals with an environment they are most adapted to in the wild.

I guess you're talking about skimmimg here.

Personally, I think it is impossible to strip a tank of nutrients entierly by using mechanical means.

That impossible "thingy" is another big animal ( or word ).

The skimmer keeps producing skimmate, doesn't it? Hmmm....I wonder why....

Are you talking about your tank or someone elses? They aren't all the same you know.

Reef tanks can and should be run differently depending on the animals that are kept in them.

Broad generalizations should be avoided as to appropriate Reef Keeping practices, in order to avoid confusion for new hobbyists, and to maintain accuracy.

I hope this is helpful.

Thanks to all, > Wave98