# Dr Timothy Hovanec's comments about Bacterial supplements



## dw1305 (10 Sep 2020)

Hi all,
People who have been following the <"Bacteria in a Bottle"> thread may have seen that I said I'd try and contact Tim Hovanec and ask him a few questions about bacterial supplements.

Dr Hovanec was kind enough to send a very thorough, and interesting reply, to the email, and has given me permission to post it on UKAPS

I'll post his reply first,  before <"the question">, because I guess most people will much more interested in Dr Hovanec's comments (rather than my questions), and this is his reply:


> Thank you for the email.  Perhaps when we are allowed to travel sometime, I could give a talk to your club (right now I am giving Skype/zoom talks due to COVID) as I always like discussing bacteria !
> 
> The short answer to your question, and I am not trying to be flippant, is that the more we learn the more we don’t know.
> 
> ...


cheers Darrel


----------



## dw1305 (10 Sep 2020)

Hi all, 
This was the original email I sent.





> My name is Darrel Watts and when I'm not at work I'm a science adviser for the <"United Kingdom Aquatic Plant Society (UKAPS)">. This is a forum which deals with planted tanks, and has a mixed membership, mainly, but not exclusively, from the UK, with a fair sprinkling of scientists as members and a generally "informed" level of debate.
> 
> I have an academic interest in the phytoremediation of polluted water, but I'm not a microbiologist or chemist, I'm a botanist. I've also been a very long term keeper of aquarium fish in planted tanks.I have a particular interest in developing stable and robust techniques for biological filtration, which aren't reliant on chemical testing and follow a risk management approach of removing single points of failure.
> 
> ...


cheers Darrel


----------



## dw1305 (10 Sep 2020)

Hi all, 
And this was Dr Hovanec's final comment.





> .... I looked quickly at the forum post and one thing that comes to mind is that people need to know that not all Nitrospira are Comammox organisms - it seems people are confusing this.  There are Nitrospira that are traditional nitrite-oxidizers and other Nitrospira that are Comammox


cheers Darrel


----------



## dw1305 (10 Sep 2020)

Hi all,
I should have also put in the attachments.

These were:




"TOP 13 THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW WHEN STARTING YOUR AQUARIUM - Using DrTim’s Aquatics One & OnlyTM Live Nitrifying Bacteria"
I can't find a link for one, and it is a pdf, so if any-one wants a copy they are best of PMing me.

and two scientific papers:

Hüpeden, J. _et al_ (2020) <"Taxonomic and functional profiling of nitrifying biofilms in freshwater, brackish and marine RAS biofilters"> _Aquacultural Engineering_ *90*.

Urakawa, H. & Sipos, A. (2020)<"Application of the consortia of nitrifying archaea and bacteria for fish transportation may be beneficial for fish trading and aquaculture"> _Aquaculture Research_ *51*:8

cheers Darrel


----------



## chrisfraser05 (10 Sep 2020)

Really good to see him reach out and respond to you.

I did alot of research a few years back (2014 i think) and decided to move my whole reef tank stock to a new tank with dead rock using Dr Tims. 

I only saw the smallest Ammo spike over a day and then it dropped right off and that was that. 
Never lost a single fish.

I did a day by day thread on ultimate reef, really half expecting to have to move everything back to the old tank (which i was feeding pure ammo to keep it ready).

i really 100% rate his products and his research/opinion.


----------



## JoshP12 (10 Sep 2020)

Thanks Darrel.


----------



## Ed Wiser (11 Sep 2020)

I know Tim well. 
We are finding now in reef aquaria that the microbiome of live rock from the ocean plays a ever big factor in reef tanks success. 
We just had a talk at MACNA 2020 online about this research done by the Shedd Aquarium in Chicago.


----------



## jaypeecee (13 Sep 2020)

Hi @dw1305 & Everyone,

Thanks a lot, Darrel, for contacting Dr Timothy Hovanec. And what a reply!

I was growing weary of trying to argue the case for at least one bottled bacteria product and also the use of ammonia. Now, people can reappraise the potential benefit of these products. 

Whew!

Thanks, Dr Tim.

JPC


----------



## Driftless (13 Sep 2020)

Thanks Dr. Tim and Darrel.


----------



## dw1305 (13 Sep 2020)

Hi all, 





jaypeecee said:


> And what a reply!


Yes it was a more comprehensive reply than I could have hoped for, and it just reinforces my view that he is one of the good guys. 





jaypeecee said:


> Now, people can reappraise the potential benefit of these products.


Personally I'm never going down that route, but if you:

Did want to keep a tank without plants,
and didn't have any filter media from another filter
Then I'd be more than happy to follow Dr Hovanec's advice. 

You could go down the ammonia and  cycle route and then  "_plant the tank and wait_".  My guess is that might offer the best of both worlds, but I'm not well informed to pass educated comment. I think @Cor used this approach with a dark period using Amazonia (which would leech ammonia).

cheers Darrel


----------



## jaypeecee (13 Sep 2020)

Hi @dw1305


dw1305 said:


> You could go down the ammonia and cycle route and then "_plant the tank and wait_".



Plant the tank and wait - for what specifically?


dw1305 said:


> Personally I'm never going down that route...



Just interested - why would you never go down the route of bottled nitrifiers and ammonia?

JPC


----------



## Cor (13 Sep 2020)

dw1305 said:


> I think @Cor used this approach with a dark period using Amazonia (which would leech ammonia).


I can't pas a educated comment also, even not a chemical or biologica one.
But I always use this plantles cycle aka dark-start approach with soil like amazonia e.a.: no lights, no CO2, only filter running and a slightly higher temp.
Do this for 3 weeks and there's no ammonia leech

Not my invention do: here is were I get it from: No Water Changes in a new Aquascape! *Secret DARK START method*


----------



## dw1305 (14 Sep 2020)

Hi all, 





jaypeecee said:


> Plant the tank and wait - for what specifically?


For an appropriate microbial flora to develop.

Because we know that the composition of the microbial assemblage is fluid, Dr Hovanec's product would give you an initial inoculum of nitrifying organisms, but the flora that develops under high ammonia loadings will differ from the assemblage that occurs in the tank once it is planted and ammonia levels are much lower.





jaypeecee said:


> Just interested - why would you never go down the route of bottled nitrifiers and ammonia?


Because I'm always going to have heavily planted tanks, with plant/microbe nitrification.

I'm never going to have high ammonia levels, so why would I want a microbial assemblage that has developed under them? It is going to convert to a "low ammonia" assemblage with time.

The only advantage would be that it would allow me to add a larger fish load to a tank that wasn't grown in. You just need to reduce ammonia and nitrite levels as quickly as possible once fish are in the tank, it doesn't matter how you get there.

In the "not grown in" scenario I would still rather use fast growing floating plants as my "safety net".

cheers Darrel


----------



## Tim Harrison (14 Sep 2020)

jaypeecee said:


> Hi @dw1305
> 
> 
> Plant the tank and wait - for what specifically?
> ...


Put simply, I think the advice is still the same. A planted tank doesn't need bacteria in a bottle or additional ammonia to cycle.
That is unless your plants are plastic...


----------



## dw1305 (14 Sep 2020)

Hi all, 





Tim Harrison said:


> A planted tank doesn't need bacteria in a bottle or additional ammonia to cycle.That is unless your plants are plastic...


That's it.

cheers Darrel


----------



## GHNelson (14 Sep 2020)

Tim Harrison said:


> Put simply, I think the advice is still the same. A planted tank doesn't need bacteria in a bottle or additional ammonia to cycle.
> That is unless your plants are plastic...


 Brilliant, excellent!!!


----------



## shangman (14 Sep 2020)

As a new fish-keeper, I read loads of info on the internet, and then convincing myself my tank was cycled after 3 weeks with ammonia dosing (all the tests I bought said 0,0,0) and of course then accidentally killed all my new fish and shrimps. I know now I did loads of beginner mistakes, but I think that the way cycling is explained facilitates those mistakes.

I think that the idea of 'maturation' is a really helpful one. It says... just calm down, wait, and don't try to get around it with any gizmos or science or anything. Have patience, do water changes, and let everything grow. Remember that you're building a mini ecosystem, and that that takes time. It's the fool-hardy method. I'm sure experienced people can get around this waiting time, but I certainly won't be trying to, seems like a lot of effort when you can just let nature take its course.


----------



## dw1305 (14 Sep 2020)

Hi all, 





shangman said:


> ......and then convincing myself my tank was cycled after 3 weeks with ammonia dosing (all the tests I bought said 0,0,0) and of course then accidentally killed all my new fish and shrimps. I know now I did loads of beginner mistakes, but I think that the way cycling is explained facilitates those mistakes.....


Unfortunately yours is quite a common experience. It is certainly <"where I started">. 

That is why I like the <"plant and wait"> method, ( using the <"Duckweed Index">), you aren't reliant on measuring a parameter you can't see,  you just need to be able to look and assess plant growth. 





shangman said:


> ...... just calm down, wait, and don't try to get around it with any gizmos or science or anything. Have patience, do water changes, and let everything grow. Remember that you're building a mini ecosystem, and that that takes time. It's the fool-hardy method.


Yes, that what I think as well.

It is really all down to probability, it isn't that cycling or <"test kits doesn't work">, it is just ask the question "_what is the method that has the smallest probability of failure? " _and I'm pretty sure the answers are

High levels of <"dissolved oxygen">
Plenty of plants, <"in active growth">, and 
<"Time">.
cheers Darrel


----------



## Zeus. (14 Sep 2020)

If we was planting our tanks with all the 1-2 grow pots then we would be introducing very few bacteria as these pots will be 'relatively' sterile, however when starting a new planted tank there will always most often be some plants that have come from tanks with a wide range of bacteria in then, even with the limited numbers of bacteria they will soon multiply and when we add other livestock we introduce more bacteria with them. So why pay for something which you can get free, throw in a few roots from weeds from the garden for 24hrs and let nature do the rest.

If what we was doing buy adding NO 'cultures in a bottle' wasnt working lots of tanks would be crashing, they aren't if you follow the simple guidelines.

I just ran my filter with the garden waste bin full of water for about 6 weeks and added some liquid UREA ( glass full every few days) had fish in very soon after flooding my DSM


----------



## dw1305 (14 Sep 2020)

Hi all, 





Zeus. said:


> If what we was doing buy adding NO 'cultures in a bottle' wasnt working lots of tanks would be crashing, they aren't if you follow the simple guidelines.


That is it, a few people have asked whether any-one has "cycled" a tank <"just with plants">, or whether it is a <"theoretical idea, with no practical application">.





CaptainC said:


> Yes, the nitrogen cycle must be completed to ensure any waste products from fish or shrimp are converted into less harmful products by your filter. Plants can remove a little ammonia but nowhere near enough to keep water safe for your livestock......



I'e found that it has been a real struggle to get people to think more widely about biological filtration and water quality, partially because the idea of <"fishless cycling is so entrenched">, and a lot of forums and literature still look upon plants as decorative or, at best, only a very minor component of the filtration system.

I think opinion is slowly changing, with more <"planted tank keepers who are also accomplished fish keepers/breeders">.





Ed Wiser said:


> We are finding now in reef aquaria that the microbiome of live rock from the ocean plays a ever big factor in reef tanks success.


I'm not a reef keeper, but in some ways I see that is an extension of the ideas of stability and biodiversity. Marine aquarists are hampered by the lack of <"marine angiosperms"> and the cost of water changes. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## Geoffrey Rea (14 Sep 2020)

dw1305 said:


> It is really all down to probability, it isn't that cycling or <"test kits doesn't work">, it is just ask the question "_what is the method that has the smallest probability of failure? " _and I'm pretty sure the answers are
> 
> High levels of <"dissolved oxygen">
> Plenty of plants, <"in active growth">, and
> ...



Can we get this put on a plaque Darrel?


----------



## dw1305 (14 Sep 2020)

Hi all, 





Geoffrey Rea said:


> Can we get this put on a plaque Darrel?


It would be useful, but I'm not sure where it could go, or how many people would read it.

We just need to  keep on replying to posts, compiling  scientific references, web posts etc. and hopefully eventually people will start to take more notice. What we aren't going to have, on the forum, is many people who use ammonia based cycling without subsequently planting their tank, but database of successes, and failures, using the different approaches would be really helpful, particularly with a photo of <"the good">, the bad and <"the ugly">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Oldguy (14 Sep 2020)

Some thoughts:

 It is very difficult to run tests on living systems which only change one variable at a time, see the thread on dosing with ammonia and urea.

We live in a world that wants instant results and there are plenty of businesses based on supplying such aspirations. Stuff in a bottle  can make money if promoted. Just try to remember that the bottle is often the most expensive part of the product.

Instant results have moved the aquatic trade into selling 'total kits' - tank, stand, heater, filter, lights etc. all bundled at a total price which is less than the sum of trying to purchase the items individually. Fish & plants on a credit note and the total price available via a finance plan.

Yes there is a market desire for fast cycling, the kids are jumping up and down for a bag of fish. I assume microbes in a bottle work, but I have short arms and deep pockets. A bit of garden soil is free and plants are both nice and work and I can only spend my money once.


----------



## dw1305 (14 Sep 2020)

Hi all, 





Oldguy said:


> It is very difficult to run tests on living systems which only change one variable at a time


Yes, point taken, it is never going to be <"definitive proof">, but it might give us a bit more idea.





Oldguy said:


> We live in a world that wants instant results and there are plenty of businesses based on supplying such aspirations. Stuff in a bottle can make money if promoted. Just try to remember that the bottle is often the most expensive part of the product.


Very much <"my point of view">, it is back to the worlds <"most expensive water contest">.





Oldguy said:


> I assume microbes in a bottle work


I think we can take Dr Hovanec's reply at face value, so <"Freshwater -One and Only"> and probably <"Tetra Safestart"> will work, other supplements might not.

cheers Darrel


----------



## sparkyweasel (14 Sep 2020)

shangman said:


> but I think that the way cycling is explained facilitates those mistakes.


It's usually explained in a way that sells products.


----------



## sparkyweasel (14 Sep 2020)

shangman said:


> I think that the idea of 'maturation' is a really helpful one.


Yes, it is. It was always the way before we were told we had to 'cycle' a tank.


----------



## PARAGUAY (15 Sep 2020)

Geoffrey Rea said:


> Can we get this put on a plaque Darrel?


Maybe Banksy (wonder if hes a aquarist)can put it on gable end somewhere


----------



## Tim Harrison (15 Sep 2020)

PARAGUAY said:


> Maybe Banksy (wonder if hes a aquarist)


Damien Hirst is an aquarist. But he needs to rethink his stocking ratio...






And someone should tell him that it's not okay to keep a zebra in an aquarium 🤪





At least not without plants.


----------



## jameson_uk (15 Sep 2020)

Tim Harrison said:


> And someone should tell him that it's not okay to keep a zebra in an aquarium....


They just need to be kept in groups of at least six


----------



## jaypeecee (15 Sep 2020)

Hi Folks,

It was out of sheer necessity that I had to dig into the science behind cycling tanks quickly and successfully. I once found myself with a potential spawning of German Blue Rams. It had happened before and I'd lost all the fry. I was determined not to let it happen again. So, I set up a new tank and successfully cycled it in just six days. In that tank, I raised 41 beautiful GBR fry through to juveniles. I used Tetra _SafeStart_, without which chances of success were negligible.

I agree with everything that's been said about planted tanks and the microbe assemblage that builds up over time. But, there are times in the aquatics hobby when we need a safety net. Think of the times when newcomers to planted tanks run into serious problems with algae and cyano growth, for example. Sometimes, it means a restart. Now, if there are fish and other inhabitants in that tank, it may be necessary to set up a quarantine as an emergency. That's one scenario in which people may be thankful for bottled critters.

Finally, I would like to add that I feel like a one-man band against an army of opponents. I don't appear to have many supporters. Or, am I just being over-sensitive?

JPC


----------



## jaypeecee (15 Sep 2020)

Hi @dw1305


dw1305 said:


> I think we can take Dr Hovanec's reply at face value, so <"Freshwater -One and Only"> and probably <"Tetra Safestart"> will work, other supplements might not.



It's a shame when we cannot put some trust in what others have been saying all along. It's disheartening. I've suggested Tetra _SafeStart_ many times and it's invariably been swept aside. Obviously, I have little credibility.

JPC


----------



## Zeus. (15 Sep 2020)

jaypeecee said:


> It's a shame when we cannot put some trust in what others have been saying all along. It's disheartening.



But sometimes/mostly no body knows the truth and its all based upon opinions/theories and unless there is a absolute definitive answers we should be questioning (with respect) the opinions/theories of others/experts alike


----------



## lilirose (15 Sep 2020)

jaypeecee said:


> Finally, I would like to add that I feel like a one-man band against an army of opponents. I don't appear to have many supporters. Or, am I just being over-sensitive?



Well, not entirely. I don't feel that Tetra SafeStart actually makes a tank safe for fish immediately, but it can definitely jump-start a "cycle", and having a "cycled" filter does appear to prevent "new tank syndrome" in my experience- if I have a "cycled" filter, I can put it into a brand new tank and stock it immediately without losing fish to ammonia poisoning.

I use sponge filtration exclusively in all of my tanks (one has a hybrid HMF, but that's just a fancy name for "gigantic sponge filter"). My procedure when I get a new sponge filter is to fishless cycle it in a 20l bucket with Tetra SafeStart and ammonia. When the cycle completes- determined via the test kit method that is disliked here- I then add it to a tank, and have never had a problem with stocking the tank straightaway. I used to do fishless cycling with ammonia in planted tanks, but after suffering a massive melt of about €100 of anubias, I realised that cycling with ammonia is pretty rough on plants.

When I got into planted tanks, I was first enamoured of the idea of going filterless, but it seemed safer to have the insurance that a sponge filter provides. I have never lost a fish to ammonia poisoning when using this method.

I get what Darrel says about the filter being a single point of failure, but I don't feel that it applies here, as the filters all go into planted tanks. They are part of a system that includes the plants and the substrate, and that system works beautifully for me. 

Also, when I used Tetra SafeStart, the process took about three weeks. I just finished one in which I used Seachem Stability, and it took more than six weeks (but it cycled eventually). Now I have a much better understanding of why this recent one took so long to finish!


----------



## dw1305 (15 Sep 2020)

Hi all, 





jaypeecee said:


> It's a shame when we cannot put some trust in what others have been saying all along. It's disheartening. I've suggested Tetra _SafeStart_ many times and it's invariably been swept aside. Obviously, I have little credibility.


No, I honestly don't think so. In fact without your input we wouldn't have had this thread, or Dr Hovanec's comments, which I hope have proved really illuminating.

Tetra "Safestart" and "One and only" are the supplements <"we've positively mentioned in the past">. If you don't have plants you are reliant on cycling the filter and, following this thread,my advice *would really be your advice, *once of those two supplements and an ammonia addition of less than 5 ppm ammonia. I don't want people to keep fish in tanks without plants (although the plants don't have to be physically in the tank with the fish, they just need to be in the same system). If we are in the realms of non-planted tanks then you really don't have much choice. 





lilirose said:


> I used to do fishless cycling with ammonia in planted tanks, but after suffering a massive melt of about €100 of anubias, I realised that cycling with ammonia is pretty rough on plants.


It might be an _Anubias_ issue, have a look at <"My unfortunate...."> you have to read forward seven years to find _who dun it_. 





lilirose said:


> I get what Darrel says about the filter being a single point of failure, but I don't feel that it applies here, as the filters all go into planted tanks. They are part of a system that includes the plants and the substrate, and that system works beautifully for me.


Point taken, it isn't, as soon as you have plants and a substrate you have plant/microbe biofiltration, and a much more robust and resilient system. 





lilirose said:


> When I got into planted tanks, I was first enamoured of the idea of going filterless, but it seemed safer to have the insurance that a sponge filter provides.


I <"always have a filter"> and I'm a great fan of sponge filters.

I've never seen plants as an <"alternative to water changes and filters">, they definitely have a synergistic effect, where the sum is greater than the parts.

cheers Darrel


----------



## lilirose (15 Sep 2020)

dw1305 said:


> I've never seen plants as an <"alternative to water changes and filters">, they definitely have a synergistic effect, where the sum is greater than the parts.



My original plans for a filterless planted tank were inspired by a wildly popular YouTuber, Foo the Flowerhorn, who has a couple of 5 gallon filterless planted Walstad tanks, of which he posts regular updates- the original one has been running for 30 months now. He does regular water changes, however. 

I'm glad I didn't decide to copy him fully and skip the filter. A few months ago he posted a video consisting of snapshots he was sent of filterless tanks his subscribers have set up. There are some that look as good as a high-tech tank, and others with very low plant mass in which the inhabitants (both plant and animal) looked very sad indeed.


----------



## jaypeecee (15 Sep 2020)

Hi @lilirose


lilirose said:


> Also, when I used Tetra SafeStart, the process took about three weeks. I just finished one in which I used Seachem Stability, and it took more than six weeks (but it cycled eventually). Now I have a much better understanding of why this recent one took so long to finish!



Good to get your feedback and good to know that I'm not on my own!

In order for the bacteria to multiply, attention must be paid to:

pH, KH, minerals in the water (particularly phosphorus), temperature and aeration

All of the above are critically important. You may already know that.

JPC


----------



## lilirose (15 Sep 2020)

jaypeecee said:


> Hi @lilirose
> 
> 
> Good to get your feedback and good to know that I'm not on my own!
> ...



Could you be more specific as to what effect you feel the above has on the process of cycling a filter?

I use remineralised RO water, and when doing a "bucket cycle", I have mixed the water to various hardness, though nothing over the 200ppm I use in Neocaridina breeding tanks. I've also done a bucket cycle with water mixed to 6 degrees GH but zero KH- this one intended for Caridina (I eventually got Crystal Black shrimp).

I suppose that my RO water is unlikely to contain any phosphorus, as I haven't added any. I have no idea how its presence or absence might affect things.

I don't feel that the pH is all that important, though as I mix my water, I never see a pH above 7.4, and I've seen drops as low as 6.2, so if your concern is a high pH, I have no experience there.

When the last "filtered bucket" was cycling much more slowly than the previous ones, I added four Indian almond leaves. I never actually tested the pH on that because, in my mind, it was not relevant- but in the very closed system consisting of a bucket and a filter with no water changes, I'd assume that the pH must have dropped when I added the IAL. That's also when I saw the first evidence of a traditional fishless cycle beginning- so in my experience, the Indian Almond leaves were a more effective "cycling product" than the one from SeaChem!


----------



## jaypeecee (15 Sep 2020)

Hi @Zeus


Zeus. said:


> But sometimes/mostly no body knows the truth and its all based upon opinions/theories and unless there is a absolute definitive answers we should be questioning (with respect) the opinions/theories of others/experts alike



But if someone produces factual evidence that something happens when something is done, opinions and theories don't come into it, do they? If I take a cup of water and stick it in a freezer, the liquid will change to a solid. Opinions and theories as to _why _we are seeing rock-solid (literally) empirical evidence can follow on later. In the same way, it is easy to demonstrate that bottled bacteria isn't snake oil. Take a tank of water and add some* ammonium chloride. Now, add some bacteria. Measure ammonia, nitrite and nitrate every 24 hours and the evidence is there for all to see.

* but not too much!

JPC


----------



## jaypeecee (15 Sep 2020)

Hi @lilirose


jaypeecee said:


> pH, KH, minerals in the water (particularly phosphorus), temperature and aeration


 


lilirose said:


> Could you be more specific as to what effect you feel the above has on the process of cycling a filter?
> 
> I use remineralised RO water, and when doing a "bucket cycle", I have mixed the water to various hardness, though nothing over the 200ppm I use in Neocaridina breeding tanks. I've also done a bucket cycle with water mixed to 6 degrees GH but zero KH- this one intended for Caridina (I eventually got Crystal Black shrimp).
> 
> ...



Glad you asked.

I also use remineralized RO water in my tanks.

Taking each of the parameters, in turn:

* pH is important as _most_ nitrifying bacteria prefer alkaline conditions in which to grow

* KH/dissolved inorganic carbon (including CO2) is important as it supplies the all-important carbon

* minerals/phosphorus is required as it's a component of something known as ATP (adenosine triphosphate), which is a building block of all living matter (as I understand it)

* temperature is important as it accelerates the bacteria growth rate. I maintain 28C - 30C.

* aeration is required as the processing of ammonia is a series of oxidation reactions, thus requiring a plentiful supply of oxygen

Hope that helps.

JPC


----------



## lilirose (15 Sep 2020)

jaypeecee said:


> * pH is important as _most_ nitrifying bacteria prefer alkaline conditions in which to grow



As my filters are mostly destined for soft water/low pH tanks, I have never provided alkaline conditions when prepping them (the Neocardina tank I mentioned had an active pH lowering substrate so it stayed around 6.6 despite mixing the water to 200ppm). 



> * KH/dissolved inorganic carbon (including CO2) is important as it supplies the all-important carbon



All-important for what? The plants, or the nitrifying bacteria? You asserted in another thread that the pre-made remineralisers that I use (Salty Shrimp and Aquadur) are missing important elements but that I might be okay because I add ferts to my tanks. However, when cycling a filter in a bucket, I don't add any ferts. The filters cycle just fine without them..



> * minerals/phosphorus is required as it's a component of something known as ATP (adenosine triphosphate), which is a building block of all living matter (as I understand it)



If phosphorus is a requirement, it must be in the remineralising salts I use- Salty Shrimp in particular is a proprietary blend so does not list ingredients. 



> * temperature is important as it accelerates the bacteria growth rate. I maintain 28C - 30C.



I agree. I actually crank the temperature up to 32C when bucket-cycling a filter.



> * aeration is required as the processing of ammonia is a series of oxidation reactions, thus requiring a plentiful supply of oxygen



Of course- a sponge filter has to be hooked up to an air pump or it is just a sponge, and not a filter.


----------



## jaypeecee (15 Sep 2020)

lilirose said:


> All-important for what? The plants, or the nitrifying bacteria?



Hi @lilirose 

As carbon is a fundamental element required by all living things, it applies to both of the above. But, I was specifically referring to the nitrifying bacteria.

JPC


----------



## lilirose (15 Sep 2020)

jaypeecee said:


> Hi @lilirose
> 
> As carbon is a fundamental element required by all living things, it applies to both of the above. But, I was specifically referring to the nitrifying bacteria.
> 
> JPC



Thanks for that. AFAIK, room air contains carbon in the form of CO2, so that must be why cycling a sponge filter with an air pump in a bucket with RO water. commercial aquarium remineraliser, household ammonia, and a bacterial starter works well for me.

In previous posts you assert that, in order to successfully grow nitrifying bacteria, one must pay attention to multiple parameters (alkaline pH, phosphates, hardness etc) because they're "critically important".

I've successfully "cycled" seven sponge filters in the past year using RO water and household ammonia whilst ignoring all these so-called critical factors. Respectfully, could you provide some sort of source or example for your assertions instead of supposing that we know and agree to all the same things that you know? Possibly I'm just misunderstanding, but a clearer explanation would help greatly.

I know I've been responding to your posts quickly, because I'm not busy tonight, but I'd much prefer a complete answer to one provided swiftly.


----------



## jaypeecee (15 Sep 2020)

I'm exceptionally busy currently. It could be a while before I can provide more information.

JPC


----------



## Zeus. (15 Sep 2020)

jaypeecee said:


> But if someone produces factual evidence that something happens when something is done, opinions and theories don't come into it, do they?



One piece of factual evidence is a start only, which may make others think, it needs to be 'peer reviewed', 'reproduced independently' by several others, then it would be looked at more seriously,...... it takes a lot of effort and time for it to be considered to true by all.


----------



## dw1305 (15 Sep 2020)

Hi all,





lilirose said:


> Thanks for that. AFAIK, room air contains carbon in the form of CO2, so that must be why cycling a sponge filter with an air pump in a bucket with RO water. commercial aquarium remineraliser, household ammonia, and a bacterial starter works well for me.


Yes,  the nitrifying bacteria need dissolved CO2. The form that <"Total Inorganic Carbon (TIC)"> takes is dependent upon pH and the total amount of TIC is dependent upon atmospheric CO2 levels.

Because nitrification is an acidifying process (you've liberated three H+ ions and combined three oxygen atoms)  you can potentially, convert all the TIC to CO2, which reduces pH and can limit nitrification, because the CO2 will only be replenished by diffusion from the atmosphere. If you have a reserve of carbonates, these buffer the pH fall and mean that a continual stream of CO2 is available for nitrification. As H+ ions are liberated pH doesn't fall because the CO3-- buffer is converted to  HCO3- and those bicarbonate ions converted to CO2. You only run out of CO2 when the carbonate buffering is exhausted.

<"Ammonia Oxidising Archaea (AOA)"> need less oxygen for nitrification,  I don't know how this effects their carbon requirement, but lowers it would be my guess. They certainly don't have the same requirement for high carbonate hardness that Ammonia Oxidising Bacteria (AOB) have.

cheers Darrel


----------



## lilirose (15 Sep 2020)

dw1305 said:


> Hi all,Yes,  the nitrifying bacteria need dissolved CO2. The form that <"Total Inorganic Carbon (TIC)"> takes is dependent upon pH and the total amount of TIC is dependent upon atmospheric CO2 levels.
> 
> Because nitrification is an acidifying process (you've liberated three H+ ions and combined three oxygen atoms)  you can potentially, convert all the TIC to CO2, which reduces pH and can limit nitrification, because the CO2 will only be replenished by diffusion from the atmosphere. If you have a reserve of carbonates, these buffer the pH fall and mean that a continual stream of CO2 is available for nitrification. As H+ ions are liberated pH doesn't fall because the CO3-- buffer is converted to  HCO3- and those bicarbonate ions converted to CO2. You only run out of CO2 when the carbonate buffering is exhausted.
> 
> ...




Thank you for the very clear and thorough explanation! 

I started keeping fish in the days of undergravel filters, when the substrate was the biological filter. I left the hobby for a time, and came back to find undergravel filters not only impossible to find, but an actual subject of mockery (despite how well they worked for me in the past). 

While researching to set up new tanks, I discovered a group of kids online preaching fishless cycling and saying that the nitrification taking place in the substrate was negligible compared to what was happening in a filter, whether that filter be sponge, HOB, or canister. To them, plants and substrate are decorations, nothing more. Real plants look nicer than fake ones, but there's no benefit beyond appearance. You were supposed to fishless cycle your filter with Tetra Safe Start and ammonia, in exactly the same way, keep the same spreadsheet of tank parameters, etc. or you were being cruel to your livestock, and to question this was treated as heresy.

Then I grew my own jungle tank and could see right in front of me that the cycled filter was one component in a system that is more complex than any of those young folk realise. It's important, but it's not the end-all-be-all. The livestock, plants, substrate, and filter form a complex system, with every bit important. But I have mostly been working on instinct rather than knowing the "why". I've always been a person who likes to know how things work, so threads like this are of immense value to me.


----------



## Luketendo (16 Sep 2020)

To add to the plants cycling tanks argument, I cycled my tank earlier this year in 1 week just with Amazonia Powder / Amazonia II and heavy planting. They were a bunch of emersed plants from a grower here in Australia.


----------



## sparkyweasel (16 Sep 2020)

lilirose said:


> (despite how well they worked for me in the past)


Shhh, we're not supposed to say that. The thousands of people that had great success were doing it wrong, just ask those kids you mentioned.


----------



## Zeus. (16 Sep 2020)

dw1305 said:


> Hüpeden, J. _et al_ (2020) <"Taxonomic and functional profiling of nitrifying biofilms in freshwater, brackish and marine RAS biofilters"> _Aquacultural Engineering_ *90*.
> 
> Urakawa, H. & Sipos, A. (2020)<"Application of the consortia of nitrifying archaea and bacteria for fish transportation may be beneficial for fish trading and aquaculture"> _Aquaculture Research_ *51*:8



Checked out those links to the papers, but could only get access to the 'abstracts' of the papers without paying, which isn't as bad as 'data on file' which you can get as companies hiding their research papers from everyone which back up their claims. But if you have to pay to read the papers I always feels this hinders 'Good Science' as this information should be open transparent and *free* for all to read and digest.


----------



## dw1305 (16 Sep 2020)

Hi all,





sparkyweasel said:


> The thousands of people that had great success were doing it wrong, just ask those kids you mentioned.





lilirose said:


> I started keeping fish in the days of undergravel filters, when the substrate was the biological filter. I left the hobby for a time, and came back to find undergravel filters not only impossible to find, but an actual subject of mockery (despite how well they worked for me in the past).


Things tend to go in and out of fashion, my guess would be that there are still quite a few older aquarists using UGF, and at some point they will have  limited renaissance. I think people like canister filters for <"their look">, because they are quiet, because maintenance is easy etc., but not necessarily because they are <"always the best choice">.





lilirose said:


> You were supposed to fishless cycle your filter with Tetra Safe Start and ammonia, in exactly the same way, keep the same spreadsheet of tank parameters, etc. or you were being cruel to your livestock, and to question this was treated as heresy.


I think a lot of us <"have been there">.





lilirose said:


> Then I grew my own jungle tank and could see right in front of me that the cycled filter was one component in a system that is more complex than any of those young folk realise.


Same for me, but I'd admit that I'm not an entirely objective observer. I started from the premise that:

Plants were the thing that <"really made a difference">, and particularly plants with <"Diana Walstad's "_aerial advantage_">.
A relatively <"undisturbed substrate was a good thing">, and that <"diversity brought resilience">.
<"Oxygen was the prime metric"> in biological filtration.
That cycling wasn't a linear process, which only occurred in <"certain specific circumstances">, but  a much more universal process. It wasn't that it wasn't occurring it was that we couldn't find it with the tools we had available to us.
I think the last fifteen years have largely vindicated this as a view (but I'm obviously biased by my "faith" position). 

One thing I would note about UKAPS, is that, although we are a plant based forum, we tend to have relatively few "fish health" posts, and a lot of members have <"fish breeding in their tanks"> without any intervention. I'm pretty sure this is because our tanks have consistently high water quality, and that this is directly attributable to the plants.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Tim Harrison (16 Sep 2020)

lilirose said:


> I started keeping fish in the days of undergravel filters, when the substrate was the biological filter.


The same here as well. Even back then there was no end to the BS about how plants wouldn't grow very well if you used an under-gravel filter since it continually disturbed the roots, or some such nonsense.

Basically, not many folk were successful at growing plants back then, for a number of reasons, but the unifying factor was UG filtration so they assumed it was that. Often the plants sold were drowning house plants. Many tanks came with a useless Edison type tungsten bulb. When folk did get hold of aquatic plants they often used lead to anchor them in plain pea gravel and didn't feed them. The list goes on.

I actually used a layer of peat sandwiched between two layers of pea gravel over an UG filter. It worked like a charm. I probably had two very viable oxidised microzones, the substrate was probably a hive of microbial activity, the tanks were supper healthy and plant growth was amazing.

I don't think I even tried to cycle a tank, never heard of it, although I did know about the nitrifying process. But it always worked without loss or problems. I guess I know pretty much why now, but it was more intuitive back then. I just tried to create an environment that was as close to natural as possible.


----------



## Zeus. (16 Sep 2020)

Luketendo said:


> To add to the plants cycling tanks argument, I cycled my tank earlier this year in 1 week just with Amazonia Powder / Amazonia II and heavy planting. They were a bunch of emersed plants from a grower here in Australia.



IMO the cycling process will different for all substrates as each substrate will bring a different array of bacteria and microorganisms to the tank, even inert substrates will have bacteria on them, how clean are our hands when scaping the tank will have an effect. To get definitive results/conclusions from living organisms or ecosystems (which includes a 5kg bag of substrate in a plastic bag) is hard, and any conclusions are subjective.


----------



## Luketendo (16 Sep 2020)

Zeus. said:


> IMO the cycling process will different for all substrates as each substrate will bring a different array of bacteria and microorganisms to the tank, even inert substrates will have bacteria on them, how clean are our hands when scaping the tank will have an effect. To get definitive results/conclusions from living organisms or ecosystems (which includes a 5kg bag of substrate in a plastic bag) is hard, and any conclusions are subjective.


I was referencing the substrate as an ammonia source not bacteria. I also used power sand which supposedly has bacteria added but more likely the plants I would say.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## dw1305 (16 Sep 2020)

Hi all, 





Zeus. said:


> but could only get access to the 'abstracts' of the papers without paying,


PM me if you want full-text.

There is a lot of argument about open source science, some scientists will <"only publish"> in open source journals, but a whole industry is based on the <"pay to publish", "pay to read" model">. 

Scientists are trapped really, they have to keep publishing to remain in any form of employment, and they have to publish in <"prestigious journals"> to rise up the academic treadmill. If they don't "perform" they are sacked. Academia is a pretty ruthless place these days, it really is a buyers market, with a huge "over-supply" of scientists.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Luketendo (16 Sep 2020)

dw1305 said:


> Hi all, PM me if you want full-text.
> 
> There is a lot of argument about open source science, some scientists will /journals.plos.org/plosone/static/publish']only publish[/URL]"> in open source journals, but a whole industry is based on the /www.aje.com/en/arc/understanding-submission-and-publication-fees/']"pay to publish", "pay to read" model[/URL]">.
> 
> ...


As a PhD student yes

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Driftless (21 Sep 2020)

I am sorry if I missed it but I have question about Dr. Tim's products:  as a result of of this discussion I ordered a number of Dr. Tim's products to try and now that they have arrived I am wondering if they are compatable with Purgen which I run as my chemical filtration in all of my caninsters?  Thanks.


----------



## dw1305 (21 Sep 2020)

Hi all, 





Driftless said:


> I am wondering if they are compatible with Purigen?


I don't know, but I don't think Purigen will make any difference to the Bacteria/Archaea, (or ammonia) you add.

It is to do with the <"size of the particle">, the microbes will be too big and the ammonium ion (NH4+) and/or dissolved ammonia (NH3) too small to be bound. If I could easily take it out of the filter I would, but if you can't it doesn't matter.

If you have plants? and your tank is up and running? You don't need the "One and Only",  but it won't do any harm.

Ammonia addition is definitely likely to do more harm than good, if you tank already "cycled".

cheers Darrel


----------



## Driftless (21 Sep 2020)

All of my tanks are heavily planted and cycled, I asked my question because Purigen does not play well with some aquarium additives, they can reduce the effectiveness of Purigen.


----------



## dw1305 (21 Sep 2020)

Hi all,





Driftless said:


> my question because Purigen does not play well with some aquarium additives, they can reduce the effectiveness of Purigen.


They can, but it is down to the size of colloid or molecule. Have a look at @Craig Matthews post in <"FeEDDHA">, and Seachem's response..








Driftless said:


> All of my tanks are heavily planted and cycled


 Is there a water quality reason for wanting to try "One and Only"? It would probably only make a positive difference if you felt that <"biological nitrification had been compromised">.

Because your tanks are established, and heavily planted, the microbial assemblage you have in the filter (and substrate) is likely to be one that has developed under <"low ammonia loading">, which would reduce any advantage of "One and Only" may have.

If you had a high ammonia situation without an inoculum of suitable  microbes (basically a non-planted, non-cycled tank) then it would be worth trying, although my guess would be that _plants and time_ are still a better option .

cheers Darrel


----------



## Driftless (21 Sep 2020)

dw1305 said:


> Hi all,They can, but it is down to the size of colloid or molecule. Have a look at @Craig Matthews post in <"FeEDDHA">, and Seachem's response..
> 
> 
> 
> ...



They are the better option but I am thinking of future tanks.  Thanks for posting the text from Seachem.


----------



## dw1305 (21 Sep 2020)

Hi all, 





Driftless said:


> They are the better option but I am thinking of future tanks.


I'm not going to advise anyone to have a tank without plants, and I'm not sure how you would actually test* for fish safeness without endangering some livestock, but I am interested in the results using one of Dr Hovanec's products (ex or current) to cycle a tank.

I still not keen on the ammonia addition, but I'm never going to keep tanks with a large fish stock and no plants, so it isn't really relevant to the type of fish keeping I do.

* <"Ion Selective Electrode">  (ISE) would be an option, but even that has some issues and you would need probes for ammonium (NH4+), nitrite (NO2-) and nitrate (NO3-). You could just measure nitrate, and estimate the extent of cycling based on the initial ammonia addition, but I would be reluctant to do that.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Driftless (22 Sep 2020)

dw1305 said:


> Hi all, I'm not going to advise anyone to have a tank without plants, and I'm not sure how you would actually test* for fish safeness without endangering some livestock, but I am interested in the results using one of Dr Hovanec's products (ex or current) to cycle a tank.
> 
> I still not keen on the ammonia addition, but I'm never going to keep tanks with a large fish stock and no plants, so it isn't really relevant to the type of fish keeping I do.
> 
> ...



Good Advice.  

I have been adding ADA Bacter 100 to my start-up tanks in addition to cycled materials from other tanks and filters, any tank will be heavily planted with the plants growing before I would any fish.


----------



## Mr Patient (1 Oct 2020)

I’m two weeks into a fishless plant less cycle. Ammonia dosed every day, zero the next. Nitrites falling, nitrates high. As soon as it’s cycled I will not do a water change like most sources recommend, I will plant the tank. Why waste those nitrates, plants should love them. No fish till plants are well established. Is this mad?


----------



## lilirose (1 Oct 2020)

Mr Patient said:


> I’m two weeks into a fishless plant less cycle. Ammonia dosed every day, zero the next. Nitrites falling, nitrates high. As soon as it’s cycled I will not do a water change like most sources recommend, I will plant the tank. Why waste those nitrates, plants should love them. No fish till plants are well established. Is this mad?



I personally would not do this. Doing a water change at the end of the cycle is not only to remove nitrates. In my experience, you will likely also have a low pH at that point. There are likely other metabolites in the water that aren't quantified on a normal test kit- I saw someone somewhere phrase it as "I don't know exactly what's in it, I just know it needs to come out."


----------



## dw1305 (1 Oct 2020)

Hi all,
Welcome, 





Mr Patient said:


> No fish till plants are well established. Is this mad?


No,  I think it should be all right, we are pretty sure that "_plants are well established_" is the bit that matters. 

I'd probably follow @lilirose 's suggestions of some water changes, they  never do any harm. You might also be interested in the <"Duckweed Index">, it is a simple technique where you use <"the growth"> and <"leaf colour of a floating plant"> to assess nutrient status.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Kelvin12 (16 Dec 2021)

Since joining this forum my home maintenance and other home duties have fallen by the wayside but my tanks have undergone several re-buildings along with numerous experiments and my budget has suffered enormously buying up plants.  The bride isn't  happy but that the norm.   I love this form and the discussions.  Its a case of you never stop learning....


----------



## Kelvin12 (16 Dec 2021)

I do have one question mainly for Lilirose if possible.  You mention adding household ammonia in your bucket cycling but at what concentration would you suggest.   
Dirk


----------



## kayjo (4 Jan 2022)

jaypeecee said:


> In the same way, it is easy to demonstrate that bottled bacteria isn't snake oil. Take a tank of water and add some* ammonium chloride. Now, add some bacteria. Measure ammonia, nitrite and nitrate every 24 hours and the evidence is there for all to see.


I did this and the evidence was that nothing happened for 2 weeks.  No decrease in ammonia, no nitrites or nitrates appeared.  I used Dr. Tim's per the instructions.

On another forum, we were discussing this issue and people couldn't understand why everybody doesn't use bacteria in a bottle because it works every time, flawlessly and quicker than any other method.  I believe that that is their experience, but not the whole truth.

I'm not saying that Dr. Tim's can't work, just that it doesn't always work.  It seems that the promise of these products is that they will work in any and all conditions.  If not, they would mention it on the bottle, correct?

Dr. Tim said, "my bacteria products are like any other living organism - they have preferences and just tossing them into some water does not guarantee success.  The user has some responsibility to provide a decent environment."  So it sounds like there is more to it than just following the directions.  I wish he would have expanded on what the "decent environment" is.  Maybe it's printed on his bottles now.  It wasn't when I used it.  

Of course on a forum like this we are going to hear mostly from people for whom these products haven't work, as most people come here to have problems solved.  I wonder if the vast majority of bottled BB users are experiencing success with these products so that it is not worth it for the maunfacurers to figue out why they don't work for some (a few?) people.  



I contacted Dr. Tim when I was using his product.  His response was prompt, considerate, scientific and professional.  I have no issue with him.


----------



## dw1305 (4 Jan 2022)

Hi all, 
This thread came out of an earlier discussion we had about  <"Bacteria in a bottle">.


kayjo said:


> Dr. Tim said, "my bacteria products are like any other living organism - they have preferences and just tossing them into some water does not guarantee success. The user has some responsibility to provide a decent environment." So it sounds like there is more to it than just following the directions.


I'm going to guess it is to do with the ammonia loading under which these products are produced, high ammonia loading will favour the growth of those <"bacteria that occur in sewage works etc.">, but not those that actually occur in planted aquariums. 

Personally I'm pretty sure that <"_plant and wait_"> is the best option, particularly if you already have seeded filter media.

Because we now know a lot more about the <"actual microbial assemblage"> that occurs in aquarium filters, it looks like it is a <"diverse assemblage">, with a , <"stable core of Ammonia Oxidising Archaea (AOA) and COMAMMOX _Nitrospira_">* and an ever changing cast of bacteria dependent upon ammonia and oxygen availability.


kayjo said:


> I contacted Dr. Tim when I was using his product. His response was prompt, considerate, scientific and professional. I have no issue with him.


Very much the same for me. I've got a <"lot of time for him">, he was good enough to answer our <"initial email"> and he has revised his product <"and opinion"> in light of more <"recent scientific advances">.  

cheers Darrel

_* Bartelme, R., McLellan, S & Newton R. (2017) "Freshwater Recirculating Aquaculture System Operations Drive Biofilter Bacterial Community Shifts around a Stable Nitrifying Consortium of Ammonia-Oxidizing Archaea and Comammox Nitrospira" Frontiers in Microbiology *8*  pp101:108_


----------



## jaypeecee (4 Jan 2022)

kayjo said:


> I did this and the evidence was that nothing happened for 2 weeks.  No decrease in ammonia, no nitrites or nitrates appeared.  I used Dr. Tim's per the instructions.


Hi @kayjo

Did you also take on board my comment below? If so, please let me know what the figures were for pH, KH, how much phosphate added, water temperature and aeration details. And, what was the starting ammonia level?


jaypeecee said:


> In order for the bacteria to multiply, attention must be paid to:
> 
> pH, KH, minerals in the water (particularly phosphorus), temperature and aeration



If we work together on this, we may be able to find a solution. But, I'm not here to defend Tetra SafeStart. It has been a great help in my tanks but it is entirely conceivable that it may not work in 100% of all the tanks out there.

JPC


----------



## Jaseon (4 Jan 2022)

When its said the conditions have to be right for these bacteria to thrive what does that mean? It must get a lot of people scratching their heads, and wondering well what's that's special thing i have to do? The old cliché of life will find a way springs to mind when it comes to how well bacteria will grow.


----------



## dw1305 (4 Jan 2022)

Hi all,


Jaseon said:


> When its said the conditions have to be right for these bacteria to thrive what does that mean?


He does go through this in the <"linked video">, it is mainly aimed at a marine aquarists, but I've just watched it and it is quite interesting and talks about ammonia loadings etc.




Jaseon said:


> The old cliché of life will find a way springs to mind when it comes to how well bacteria will grow.


Yes, I think so. It is back to the <"all you can eat buffet">. 

I was always <"dubious about the traditional view of cycling">, even before I found out about Ammonia Oxidising Archaea (AOA) etc it just didn't seem to make any ecological sense.

cheers Darrel


----------



## jaypeecee (4 Jan 2022)

Jaseon said:


> When its said the conditions have to be right for these bacteria to thrive what does that mean?


Hi @Jaseon 

In order to answer your question, what specifically are you referring to? Was it something Dr Hovanec or I or someone else stated? It certainly is true that the conditions have to be optimal and pH, KH, etc. are all important, for example.

JPC


----------



## jaypeecee (4 Jan 2022)

Hi @Jaseon 

And it may be obvious but, as Dr Hovanec is keen to mention in one of his videos, it is _very_ important to shake the Safe Start bottle before pouring into the tank. Plus, it's a living product so ensure that what you're using isn't past its Expiry Date.

JPC


----------



## Jaseon (4 Jan 2022)

dw1305 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> He does go through this in the <"linked video">, it is mainly aimed at a marine aquarists, but I've just watched it and it is quite interesting and talks about ammonia loadings etc.
> 
> ...


Are the revised names for the bacteria the same for fresh water? Its a bit of a surprise that the bacteria that are seen in the treatment of sewage are not the same ones that we commonly associate with our aquariums.

He finally put to bed the idea that bacteria live in the water column.


----------



## Jaseon (4 Jan 2022)

jaypeecee said:


> Hi @Jaseon
> 
> In order to answer your question, what specifically are you referring to? Was it something Dr Hovanec or I or someone else stated? It certainly is true that the conditions have to be optimal and pH, KH, etc. are all important, for example.
> 
> JPC


No im referring to the general mystique behind the process in general. I mean what does it take to get it to the point where everything goes drastically wrong, and the system crashes, and your fish die? Adhere to the basics, and with common sense the conditions can be easily met imo.

I really enjoyed what the Dr said. There's no doubt his knowledge is the best out there at the moment.


----------



## jaypeecee (4 Jan 2022)

Jaseon said:


> He finally put to bed the idea that bacteria live in the water column.


Hi @Jaseon 

I can't remember if Dr Hovanec mentions this - but _nitrifying bacteria_ avoid light, particularly blue light and UV light. So, the place for them to reproduce and multiply is inside the typical filtration unit - be that a canister or simple sponge filter. _Heterotrophic_ bacteria, on the other hand, are plentiful in the water column.

JPC


----------



## Jaseon (4 Jan 2022)

jaypeecee said:


> Hi @Jaseon
> 
> _Heterotrophic_ bacteria, on the other hand, are plentiful in the water column.
> 
> JPC


Right, but not in the concentrations worth any mention, and not the kind we want?...well according to Dr tim that is. Ive heard of some using old tank water, and if they do give some benefit its not the benefit they assume it is. Thats kinda what im referring to.

If im learning it correctly the _Heterotrophic_ bacteria, strip the micro nutrients especially phosphate out of the water column, and so is in direct competition with the 'good' bacteria. So we need to remove the completion (_Heterotrops)_ as much as possible


----------



## jaypeecee (4 Jan 2022)

Jaseon said:


> No im referring to the general mystique behind the process in general. I mean what does it take to get it to the point where everything goes drastically wrong, and the system crashes, and your fish die? Adhere to the basics, and with common sense the conditions can be easily met imo.
> 
> I really enjoyed what the Dr said. There's no doubt his knowledge is the best out there at the moment.


Hi @Jaseon 

Ah, I'm on the same songsheet now. And I guess there is a degree of mystique around this aspect of aquatics. When I was first trying to get to grips with the nitrification process a few years ago, I read all the scientific material that I could lay my hands on. Since then, I have not lost any fish to ammonia, nitrite or nitrate.

Feel free to ask further questions. I, for one, will do my best to answer. And if I don't know the answer, I'll tell you.

With reference to Dr Tim (Hovanec), his name will go down in aquatics history. And, you know what makes him (even more) worth listening to - he is himself a fishkeeper.

JPC


----------



## jaypeecee (4 Jan 2022)

Jaseon said:


> Right, but not in the concentrations worth any mention, and not the kind we want?...well according to Dr tim that is. Ive heard of some using old tank water, and if they do give some benefit its not the benefit they assume it is. Thats kinda what im referring to.


Hi @Jaseon 

Nitrifying bacteria are autotrophic in that they make their own food (from ammonia/nitrite). Heterotrophic bacteria typically feed on detritus and dissolved organic matter. As you can imagine, there are varying populations of them dependent on tank hygiene.

JPC


----------



## Jaseon (4 Jan 2022)

Im thinking that all that sludge we have in our media is creating a breeding ground for the _Heterotrophic_ bacteria and as the Dr said causes the nitrification to slow or stall.

So if when we rinse out our media to create the flow we need how do we get rid of the sludge, but keep the good bacteria? Is it just a case of making sure our maintenance is less vigorous? so we dont wash the good away? Obviously our plants are more than ready to take up any slack created by rinsing until they recover?


----------



## jaypeecee (4 Jan 2022)

Hi @Jaseon 

You may find this helpful.:






						6.2. Biofiltration in an Aquarium
					

An explanation of how biofiltration and beneficial bacteria work in an aquarium filter.




					aquariumscience.org
				




I'm still grappling with some of the things the author says in the above.

JPC


----------



## Jaseon (4 Jan 2022)

jaypeecee said:


> Hi @Jaseon
> 
> You may find this helpful.:
> 
> ...





> Yeah it seems at odds with what Dr tim was talking about with the _Heterotrophic_ bacteria which the article states 'This process creates bacteria free, crystal clear water which is important for fish health',



but a large presence of it might indicate that the filtration is becoming clogged with muck (organics) to the point where by it has a negative effect on the nitrifying bacteria?

Also



> One of the best write-ups on this subject came from Swiss Tropicals, the supplier of Poret Foam. They said:
> 
> “_The brown filter sludge in a filter is for the most part alive and not simply waste. Removing this mud does more harm than good. _



If a filter is going to be clogged at some point with this sludge which in turn produces more _Heterotrophic_ bacteria (which we dont want) how do we navigate around that? Just simply good maintenance?

Maybe thats one way of running into high nitrite readings ie a blocked filter which in turn affects your nitrifying bacteria. Please tell me im right as i dont want to think about it any other way LOL.


----------



## jaypeecee (4 Jan 2022)

jaypeecee said:


> I'm still grappling with some of the things the author says in the above.





Jaseon said:


> If a filter is going to be clogged at some point with this sludge which in turn produces more _Heterotrophic_ bacteria (which we dont want) how do we navigate around that? Just simply good maintenance?



Hi @Jaseon 

Yup. That's why I can't get my head around the statement in the _Aquarium Science_ comments.

JPC


----------



## dw1305 (4 Jan 2022)

Hi all,


Jaseon said:


> If a filter is going to be clogged at some point with this sludge which in turn produces more _Heterotrophic_ bacteria (which we dont want) how do we navigate around that? Just simply good maintenance?


Have a look at <"Extended Aeration">. If you have high oxygen levels <"most oxidisable material"> will be oxidised.


jaypeecee said:


> I'm still grappling with some of the things the author says in the above.


He is keeping fish at <"insane stocking rates">, he needs very efficient nitrification as he has no safety net and his filter is a <"single point of failure">.  I think that is partially why he likes <"Kaldnes type media">, it can't clog.


Jaseon said:


> If a filter is going to be clogged at some point with this sludge


Dr Stephan Tanner (of <"Swiss Tropicals">) is<"referring specifically to HMF filters">, things are <"slightly different with canister filters">. Even though we concentrate on microbial nitrification there are a <"whole suite of other organisms"> <"involved in the remediation of waste water">, many of which will occur in <"filter sponges etc">.

I think @Jaseon has been <"down the HMF route">?

In waste water treatment (and aquaculture) often there isn't a filter media as such, the bacteria, archaea, rotifers, protists etc <"clump together to form bioflocs">.


Jaseon said:


> Are the revised names for the bacteria the same for fresh water? Its a bit of a surprise that the bacteria that are seen in the treatment of sewage are not the same ones that we commonly associate with our aquariums.


Yes, the <"past is a different country"> none of the bacteria that were thought to be essential for nitrification <"actually occur in aquarium filters">. You wouldn't know it from most Aquarium literature and forums, but the <"traditional linear view of cycling definitely isn't right">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Jaseon (4 Jan 2022)

dw1305 said:


> I think @Jaseon has been <"down the HMF route">?
> 
> 
> cheers Darrel


Not yet no. I am in the process of building two tanks which will be using them though.


----------



## Jaseon (4 Jan 2022)

dw1305 said:


> He is keeping fish at <"insane stocking rates">, he needs very efficient nitrification as he has no safety net and his filter is a <"single point of failure">.  I think that is partially why he likes <"Kaldnes type media">, it can't clog.


Im not sure why that guy is used often as an example in the discussion as he represents the extreme end of what most of us are used to ie 'normal' community tanks with modest stocking levels.  6.2. Biofiltration


----------



## heliophyte (5 Jan 2022)

Jaseon said:


> Im not sure why that guy is used often as an example in the discussion as he represents the extreme end of what most of us are used to ie 'normal' community tanks with modest stocking levels.  6.2. Biofiltration



I suppose his stocking level is quite different than what most users here have. But if it works for him, it should work probably work for smaller bioloads as well.
I mean if you have hardly any fish in a giant planted tank almost any filtering will be enough.
His situation is not so different as say a watertreatment plant is compared to an aquarium, so I don't see why for example his research on filtermedia should be discounted.


----------



## dw1305 (5 Jan 2022)

Hi all, 


heliophyte said:


> His situation is not so different as say a water treatment plant is compared to an aquarium, so I don't see why for example his research on filtermedia should be discounted.


That is pretty much where I'm coming from. 

I think there are <"valid criticisms of some of the content">, but one reason I've referenced his site is that it is <"one of the few resources"> that <"uses the scientific method"> and makes some attempt at replication etc.

I'll be honest, personally I think there are <"too many unknown unknowns"> to <"quantify exactly"> what makes an aquarium "successful", but <"you can use probability"> and <"scientific research in related fields"> to get a "best guess" about what is likely to work and what is <"snake oil">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## Jaseon (5 Jan 2022)

heliophyte said:


> I suppose his stocking level is quite different than what most users here have. But if it works for him, it should work probably work for smaller bioloads as well.
> I mean if you have hardly any fish in a giant planted tank almost any filtering will be enough.
> His situation is not so different as say a watertreatment plant is compared to an aquarium, so I don't see why for example his research on filtermedia should be discounted.



Yeah I didn't think of it along those lines i just thought why muddy the waters when for me at least i felt i was starting to get somewhere, and understand it more. I thought the same thing with the water treatment analogy in as much it uses different bacteria than we see in the aquarium, but the process is the same so its still valid.


----------



## heliophyte (5 Jan 2022)

Jaseon said:


> Yeah I didn't think of it along those lines i just thought why muddy the waters when for me at least i felt i was starting to get somewhere, and understand it more. I thought the same thing with the water treatment analogy in as much it uses different bacteria than we see in the aquarium, but the process is the same so its still valid.


Yeah, this is a topic where it sometimes feels like the more I read, the less I know. But like Darrel keeps saying, there isn't one way to go about it. There are many ways to have good filtration or to cycle a tank.


----------



## dw1305 (5 Jan 2022)

Hi all, 


Jaseon said:


> i just thought why muddy the waters when for me at least i felt i was starting to get somewhere, and understand it more.


For me the simple answer is just have plenty of plants, with some of them having access to <"atmospheric oxygen and CO2">. After that everything else <"is of lesser importance">.  


heliophyte said:


> Yeah, this is a topic where it sometimes feels like the more I read, the less I know. But like Darrel keeps saying, there isn't one way to go about it. There are many ways to have good filtration or to cycle a tank.


I really don't care how people get there, I want people to keep planted tanks because planted tanks just make fish keeping easier and more enjoyable. 

If we (as a forum) can help people <"avoid getting ripped off">? I think in the long term that is <"better for everybody"> (including the vendors of filter media, test kits etc). 

cheers Darrel


----------



## Jaseon (5 Jan 2022)

dw1305 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> For me the simple answer is just have plenty of plants, with some of them having access to <"atmospheric oxygen and CO2">. After that everything else <"is of lesser importance">.
> 
> ...


Well ive learned a lot since being here so im happy. I do like to know how it all works in general so any poking i do is just from wanting to know more, and not to disprove anything in general so its all good. Im certainly no fan boy when it comes to filters, and media etc, and if it makes sense to me ill go with that.


----------



## dw1305 (5 Jan 2022)

Hi all, 


Jaseon said:


> I do like to know how it all works in general


Same for me, I like to know <"how things work">. Hind-sight is a wonderful thing, and I'm sure <"we've all done things in the past"> that we wouldn't do now.  We can all get better at keeping aquariums, if we record what works and what doesn't work and try and avoid making the same mistake repeatedly.


Jaseon said:


> Well ive learned a lot since being here......


<"So have I">. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## Kelvin12 (6 Jan 2022)

Since joing this forum its been a never ending days/weeks of reading material here.  My 'watch' list grows everyday whe  I check in and now its way longer than the internet bookmark list by a long shot.  
I thought prior to arriving here I had a bit of a handle on water chemistery....... how wrong was that assumption.   This is by far the best forum everev and thanks to all who contribute......
Dirk


----------



## NatalieHurrell (16 Jan 2022)

jaypeecee said:


> Hi @Jaseon
> 
> I can't remember if Dr Hovanec mentions this - but _nitrifying bacteria_ avoid light, particularly blue light and UV light. So, the place for them to reproduce and multiply is inside the typical filtration unit - be that a canister or simple sponge filter. _Heterotrophic_ bacteria, on the other hand, are plentiful in the water column.
> 
> JPC


This is interesting and adds further merit to the idea of reducing the blue light spectrum to reduce risk of algae when starting up a new tank.   Double the benefit.


----------



## kayjo (17 Jan 2022)

_"Ideally, the nitrifiers should neither be exposed to sunlight or room light of a color other than red (e.g., darkroom lighting). *When grown as an attached biofilm, though*, considerable shading provided by bacterial layering will shelter the lower organisms from stressful light. Hence, this recommendation against light exposure is somewhat conservative."_ Behavior and Physiology of Nitrifying Bacteria

_Ammonia-oxidizing `nitritifiers' are sensitive to a region of the light spectrum known as near-shoulder' ultraviolet (Alleman, 1987)...For those `nitritifiers' affected by light, though, darkfield repair is possible, during which these bacteria rehabilitate over a period of hours in the presence of an available energy producing substrate.  _


			Behavior and Physiology of Nitrifying Bacteria
		


*Culture irradiance below 250 μmol m−2 s−1 did not show a significant effect on nitrification activity*_, while irradiance at 500 and 1250 μmol m−2 s−1 caused a decrease of 20 and 60% in the specific total ammonium nitrogen removal rates and a reduction of 26 and 71% in the specific NO3− production rates, respectively. _








						Influence of light intensity on bacterial nitrifying activity in algal-bacterial photobioreactors and its implications for microalgae-based wastewater treatment | Request PDF
					

Request PDF | Influence of light intensity on bacterial nitrifying activity in algal-bacterial photobioreactors and its implications for microalgae-based wastewater treatment | The influence of irradiance on the nitrifying activity in photobioreactors of a bacterial consortium enriched from a...




					www.researchgate.net
				




_*Light irradiation over 500 μmol/m2 s reduces bacterial nitrifying activity*._ Influence of light intensity on bacterial nitrifying activity in algal-bacterial photobioreactors and its implications for microalgae-based wastewater treatment

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't 500mm way more light than any of use?  My low tech tank is at well under 40mm at the substrate (based on the light's mm rating at given height.  I don't own a par meter)

What mm levels are high tech tanks using?


----------



## arcturus (17 Jan 2022)

kayjo said:


> _"Ideally, the nitrifiers should neither be exposed to sunlight or room light of a color other than red (e.g., darkroom lighting). *When grown as an attached biofilm, though*, considerable shading provided by bacterial layering will shelter the lower organisms from stressful light. Hence, this recommendation against light exposure is somewhat conservative."_ Behavior and Physiology of Nitrifying Bacteria
> 
> _Ammonia-oxidizing `nitritifiers' are sensitive to a region of the light spectrum known as near-shoulder' ultraviolet (Alleman, 1987)...For those `nitritifiers' affected by light, though, darkfield repair is possible, during which these bacteria rehabilitate over a period of hours in the presence of an available energy producing substrate.  _
> 
> ...


That depends where and how deep you measure the radiation. The light on the example below produces ~250 µmol/m2 at a depth of ~60cm right below the lamp. You would get values above 500 µmol/m2 at least in the upper water layers. 

But this is all a theoretical exercise. A tank will have plenty of places with minimum radiation even if 500 µmol/m2 reach the substrate level. These limits only have consequences if you place the bacteria in a box of glass in laboratory conditions where they are completely irradiated.


----------



## dw1305 (21 Nov 2022)

Hi all,
I'll start a <"new thread as well">, but I'll put this here as well, because it is very relevant to this thread, and to the microbes that actually perform nitrification in our tanks.

Al-Ajeel, S., Spasov, E., Sauder, L.A., McKnight, M.M. and Neufeld, J.D., 2022. "Ammonia-oxidizing archaea and complete ammonia-oxidizing bacteria in water treatment systems". _Water Research *X*_*,* p.100131.

<"Ammonia-oxidizing archaea and complete ammonia-oxidizing Nitrospira in water treatment systems">.

cheers Darrel


----------



## jaypeecee (21 Nov 2022)

Hi @dw1305 

Yes, interesting stuff. I'll keep an eye open for your new thread related to the above topic.

JPC


----------

