Water changes bad for beneficial bacteria

[dw1305]

Hi all,

I know plants play into this as I guess in a heavily planted tank the ammonia rarely makes it to nitrification and is consumed by the plants before then. How would this differ in a non planted tank?

I never answered this bit, my guess is that you are right and the plants mop up most of the ammonia before it makes it into microbial nitrification. In a non-planted tank you have a few other variables that become more important.

• The first is the level of dissolved oxygen, if you <"can get enough oxygen into the water"> you can potentially microbially oxidise a much larger amount of ammonia. Some types of filter (particularly "wet and dry" trickle filters) are more effective at maintaining oxygenation.

The prime metric in nitrification isn't actually the ammonia concentration, it is the dissolved oxygen level. As you have water with greater amounts of organic pollution its Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) increases, BOD values range from clean water at below 5 mg/l dissolved oxygen up to about 600 mg/L in raw sewage. Water is fully saturated with oxygen at about 10 mg/L, so you can see that you would need to continually add oxygen for nitrification to occur. Sewage works do this via the <"Activated Sludge"> process (below).

• The next is pH, if you have pH below pH7 then the TAN remains ionized as ammonium (NH4+) and relatively non-toxic. You would still have issues with subsequent higher levels of nitrite (NO2-)
• The next is the nature of the biofilm, if you had a filter medium, like <"floating cell media">, or a fluidised bed system, you have more likelihood of maintaining an effective biofilm for nitrification.

cheers Darrel

 

[sparkyweasel]

something called a NH4 pack checker

I don't know why they call it a 'pack checker' but it seems to be ADA's version of an ammonia test. 5 tests for 11.90 Euros at;
ADA
I wonder if it's any better than, eg API's kit, 130 tests for £8.18 at;
API

 

[Hufsa]

Maybe it gives you an overwhelming sense of superiority as you use it
Otherwise I would bet money its very similar to any other kind of ammonia test..

 

[John q]

Thanks Sparkyweasel, thats not something I'll be buying any time soon.

 

[jaypeecee]

We should also consider the elephant in the room that is TESTING! We all know these kits aren't accurate but lots of us do it in secrecy, fearing ridicule if the secret ever gets out. When starting a tank how do we know when its safe to add fish if we don't at some point test for ammonia?

Hi @John q

Firstly, I admire you for raising this point. Everyone should feel able to do what they believe to be correct. Over time, their views may change. If people can back up their alternative viewpoint with a good reasoned argument, then others are more likely to listen. I'm reminded of a TV programme a few years ago in which Harry Enfield portrayed a character who used to go around telling everyone "You don't want to do it like that". I am sometimes nervous about mentioning test kits on some sites. Indeed, that applies here on UKAPS. But, I have a scientific background and if someone can explain why I shouldn't use this or that test kit, I'll listen. It is wrong to tar all test kits with the same brush, in my opinion. I use a lot of test kits and I wouldn't be without them.

JPC

 

[jaypeecee]

If the ammonia creeps up again the BB will enjoy a population explosion. Some bacteria can double their numbers in 20 minues if there is sufficient food.

Hi @sparkyweasel

Whilst it's true that heterotrophic bacteria multiply like rabbits, it is my understanding that autotrophic nitrifying bacteria reproduce slowly. We're talking 15 - 20 hours to double the population.

JPC

 

[jaypeecee]

...the abstracted scientific process of cycling which confuses beginners and makes them think they can cheat and speed things up by fiddling and doing excessive am/no/na tests.

Hi @shangman

We obviously beg to differ here. There's no 'cheating' involved and I know from my experience on A N Other forum that many beginners welcome the use of bacterial additives and ammonia to 'condition' their new tanks. And it can substantially speed up the maturation of a tank. But, I do agree that the word 'cycling' is somewhat misleading.

JPC

 

[jaypeecee]

Otherwise I would bet money its very similar to any other kind of ammonia test..

Hi @Hufsa

As I understand it, most ammonia test kits use the salicylate method. So that possibly limits the number of variants of test kits.

JPC

 

[jaypeecee]

I don't know why they call it a 'pack checker'

Hi @sparkyweasel

Do they also produce a six-pack checker?



JPC

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

It is wrong to tar all test kits with the same brush, in my opinion. I use a lot of test kits and I wouldn't be without them.

That is the real point, I don't think we are tarring them all with the same brush. I've always advised people to get water parameters from their water company, you can trust them because the water company <"has a dedicated lab."> with analytical equipment and trained staff who can use it.

Then there is the person doing the testing, @jaypeecee, @Zeus., @alto, @reefkeeper1 etc. are scientists and understand <"the scientific method"> etc. Familiarity with standard curves and serial dilutions is likely to stand you in good stead in water testing.

Then there are the tests, some parameters are easier to test for than others, <"a low range PO4--- test"> is going to give you accurate results if you follow the instructions, any nitrate test is going to be more problematic.

it is my understanding that autotrophic nitrifying bacteria reproduce slowly.

We just don't know. We can actually ignore the bacteria that those results were based on, because they don't occur in aquarium filters and were just the bacteria that were:

• isolated from sewage sludge and
• that we could culture in vitro.

We don't know about the <"diversity of nitrifying micro-organisms that do occur in filters">, because we can't/haven't cultured them and they were found <"using DNA libraries and PCR">. I'm risk adverse, but I would be willing to bet that slow growth rate isn't a universal factor in nitrifying organisms, for the reasons given in the <"one legged Irishman">.

cheers Darrel

 

[jaypeecee]

We can actually ignore the bacteria that those results were based on, because they don't occur in aquarium filters...

Hi @dw1305

The point that I was making was the different reproduction rate of heterotrophic and autotrophic bacteria in aquaria, not the exact species of bacteria. But, I can see that there is an interesting topic for discussion here. As our filters trap organic waste, both types of bacteria are presumably at work inside our filters. What are the implications of this? Should we 'investigate' this further in a new thread?

JPC

 

[John q]

Thanks jaypeecee.

Firstly, I admire you for raising this point. Everyone should feel able to do what they believe to be correct. Over time, their views may change.

Well I haven't been on the forum long and I'm quite thick skinned so was simply saying what I believe to be true.

I've kept fish on and off for over 30 yrs and its been ingrained into my psychology to test and test again. Coming over to planted tanks as been somewhat of a watershed and educational at the same time.
I agree in the main that testing isn't needed per se, but I still think there are times when not to test simply because someone on a forum says so is fool hardy.


Whilst I'm having a rant I'd like to make a comment about adding ammonia to aid cycling a tank. It's something I've done in the past and to me it was better than doing a fish in cycle, which is how we did it years ago ~ and now we have the silent cycle, which it seems is another progression.

What annoys me is how people are quick to jump all over the mere thought of adding half a dozen drops of ammonia to a tank but don't even raise an eyebrow when somebody dumps 10kg of ammonium ladend substrate into it.

Then there are the tests, some parameters are easier to test for than others, <"a low range PO4--- test"> is going to give you accurate results if you follow the instructions

That's interesting darrel, when I set the tank up in September I got a PO4 test kit and for a few weeks obsessed about the high levels, I eventually tested the tap water and got a reading of 2ppm so ditched the kit assuming it was inaccurate.

By the way thanks for steering me toward that AOA paper.

 

[jaypeecee]

I agree in the main that testing isn't needed per se...

Hi @John q

Great to hear back from you! BTW, I must have been otherwise engaged when you first arrived on board HMS UKAPS! So, a somewhat belated welcome from me.

I'm afraid I subscribe to Lord Kelvin's statement that if you measure it, you can manage it (or words to that effect). So, I like to have some figures to toss around. I feel naked otherwise and that's not a pretty sight! So, I test. I'll give you a recent example. Growth of some floating plants recently was suffering. It turned out that the tank water was very deficient in phosphorus. Had I not tested for phosphate, I would still be trying to guess the cause.

JPC

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

reproduction rate of heterotrophic and autotrophic bacteria in aquaria, not the exact species of bacteria.

My guess is that autotrophic microorganisms mainly reproduce more slowly then heterotrophic ones, but we don't actually know. <"What do know"> is that most of the ammonia oxidising organisms that we are interested in are Archaea, and that of the bacteria, Nitrospira genus contains some species that are canonical nitrite (NO2-) oxidisers and some that are COMAMMOX organisms that directly oxidise ammonia (NH3) to nitrate (NO3-).

I've kept fish on and off for over 30 yrs and its been ingrained into my psychology to test and test again. Coming over to planted tanks as been somewhat of a watershed and educational at the same time.

I think the real difference is that the last thirty years have seen <"huge advances in science">, which on the whole haven't <"trickled down to forums"> or LFS. Personally what has made the most difference to me has been more of an understanding of <"probability and risk">.

If there was a meter or test kit that you could dip into your aquarium and it would tell you all about the condition of the water <"I would unreservedly recommend it">. Again I would guess that at some point we might get nearer to that, until then <"I'm going to stick with best guess">.

cheers Darrel

 

[jaypeecee]

If there was a meter or test kit that you could dip into your aquarium and it would tell you all about the condition of the water <"I would unreservedly recommend it">. Again I would guess that at some point we might get nearer to that, until then <"I'm going to stick with best guess">.

Hi @dw1305

As I've said before, 'sticking with best guess' works for you, Darrel, because of your years of experience as a botanist working with plants. But, put yourself in my shoes working with transistors, resistors, capacitors, etc. and I'm in danger of trying to work out where to connect the battery to make my plants grow better!

On a more serious note, I think an ORP meter is one of the best investments I've ever made for checking the overall health of an aquarium.

JPC

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

'sticking with best guess' works for you, Darrel, because of your years of experience as a botanist working with plants.

I'm not trying to obscure the fact that it is an advantage, and I'm still better with plants <"than I am with fish">, having said that a lot of members, who aren't botanists, are a lot better with plants than I am.

I think that we have made a differentiation between <"black and white scenarios">, mainly in <"inorganic chemistry"> and more complex ecological interactions.

.......... I'm a pretty shoddy fish and plant keeper,and I like grown in jungles because they are <"pretty robust and stable">. More skilled aquarists can get manage tanks with a much lower plant mass.

But, put yourself in my shoes working with transistors..........

I understand that if your scientist working with immutable physical laws then a <"shades of grey"> world is a more difficult concept. To quote <"Lord Kelvin">

........ In science there is only physics; all the rest is stamp collecting..........

but I think that he underestimates stamp collecting.

cheers Darrel

 

[sparkyweasel]

Hi @sparkyweasel

Whilst it's true that heterotrophic bacteria multiply like rabbits, it is my understanding that autotrophic nitrifying bacteria reproduce slowly. We're talking 15 - 20 hours to double the population.

JPC

Quite right. But we may have heterotrophic nitrifying bacteria. Once again it's annoying that we don't have much idea of what species we have or are likely to have.
Heterotrophic nitrifying bacteria can be found in marine and waste water environments, I haven't (yet) been able to find reproduction rates for these.

"Highlights
Vibrio sp. Y1-5 exhibited efficient nitrate and ammonium removal in the single aerobic heterotrophic condition."​

Link
"domestic wastewater using Bacillus cereus GS-5 strain exhibiting heterotrophic nitrification"
Link

On a lighter note, 'breeding like rabbits' always reminds me of a lady who brought a rabbit into the pet hospital where I was working as she (rabbit, not owner) was getting fat. She thought she was feeding her properly, and her other rabbits were fine. We could hardly keep straight faces when she said "and she can't be pregnant because she has only been in with male two or three times."

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

....... But we may have heterotrophic nitrifying bacteria. Once again it's annoying that we don't have much idea of what species we have or are likely to have.

My guess is that there are a huge diversity of novel ammonia oxidising organisms (AOA and AOB) that we haven't found yet and that the microbial assemblage will be very fine tuned, over time, <"to the conditions in the tank/filter">.

This paper <"Sakoula, D., Koch, H., Frank, J. et al. Enrichment and physiological characterization of a novel comammox Nitrospira indicates ammonium inhibition of complete nitrification"> definitely suggests that, and reinforces the idea that initial <"high ammonia loadings"> ("traditional ammonia base cycling") may slow the development of that stable, fine-tuned, assemblage.

.......novel comammox species, tentatively named “Candidatus Nitrospira kreftii”, and performed a detailed genomic and physiological characterization. The complete genome of “Ca. N. kreftii” allowed reconstruction of its basic metabolic traits. Similar to Nitrospira inopinata, the enrichment culture exhibited a very high ammonia affinity (Km(app)_NH3 ≈ 0.040 ± 0.01 µM), but a higher nitrite affinity (Km(app)_NO2- = 12.5 ± 4.0 µM), indicating an adaptation to highly oligotrophic environments. Furthermore, we observed partial inhibition of ammonia oxidation at ammonium concentrations as low as 25 µM. This inhibition of “Ca. N. kreftii” indicates that differences in ammonium tolerance rather than affinity could potentially be a niche determining factor for different comammox Nitrospira.

This one is from <"Heise, J., Müller, H., Probst, A.J. et al. Ammonium Removal in Aquaponics Indicates Participation of Comammox Nitrospira. Curr Microbiol (2021).">

.....However, one of the most abundant operational taxonomic units (OTU) was classified as a member of the genus Nitrospira with a relative abundance of 3.8%. For this genus, also genome scaffolds were recovered encoding the only ammonia monooxygenase genes identified in the metagenome. This study indicates that even in highly efficient aquaponic systems, comammox Nitrospira were found to participate in ammonium removal at low steady-state ammonia concentrations........

This one has recently come my way, but it is 619 pages so I haven't read it all yet. <"Nutrient cycling in aquaponics systems">

We don't know about the <"diversity of nitrifying micro-organisms that do occur in filters">, because we can't/haven't cultured them and they were found <"using DNA libraries and PCR">. I'm risk adverse, but I would be willing to bet that slow growth rate isn't a universal factor in nitrifying organisms, for the reasons given in the <"one legged Irishman">.

I'm sticking with that one, remind <"me in ten years time"> and I expect we will have an answer.

cheers Darrel

 

[jameson_uk]

This all went a bit Anchorman and escalated quickly...
I have little interest in preaching or trying to convert others and take everything I read with a good pinch of salt (even on here )

Unless I have misunderstood something I still haven't seen anything that would answer the original questions...

Specifically how long would BB last without a food source. Assuming you took the media out of a canister filter and put it in a bag in a tank that had reasonable oxygenation (ie. some surface agitation) but no bioload (lets assume this is a brand new tank with RO water and no water changes) would the BB survive? I know all tanks are different and there will be lots of factors to this but was just looking at orders of magnitude, are we talking hours, days, weeks or longer?

 

[dw1305]

Hi all,

Specifically how long would BB last without a food source. Assuming you took the media out of a canister filter and put it in a bag in a tank that had reasonable oxygenation (ie. some surface agitation) but no bioload (lets assume this is a brand new tank with RO water and no water changes) would the BB survive?

The best we've got is probably Dr Tim Hovanec's comments in <"Dr Timothy Hovanec's comments about Bacterial supplements">

....... If you look at the forums the overwhelming opinion (at least by the very vocal minority of self-proclaimed experts) is that bacteria can’t live in a bottle, supplements don’t work and it is all just snake oil. I gave up fighting that long ago. This vocal minority seems to think science does not pertain to aquariums but it very much does and biology is complex - that’s the fun part!.........................

cheers Darrel