Everything we know about ‘beneficial bacteria’ is wrong?

[black ghost]

I’ll say nothing, because my brain imploded when I read this.

https://aquariumscience.org/index.php/2 ... -bacteria/


Discuss...

EDIT..... upon further reading of the site, it’s all bovine excrement.

[Stephen]

@black ghost

After reading the above link I am a new man.
As I am always wanting to educate myself to become a better and more knowledgeable fish keeper, I decided to read another section too.
Wow! I am a born again fish keeper. Hallelujah, Amen, Rejoice people.

[plankton]

Well......it sounds like Americans have been playing with distilled water.
All the tests used distilled water with a ph of 6.8, KH 0 (no GH reading) so there was no real test done, i.e. with soft water or hard water, only a "norm" test.
Their findings could be viewed as "interesting" but not proven......as they haven't tested everything.
Anyway who uses distilled water only to keep fish in? Nobody I hope!!

[black ghost]

It’s a page detailing current knowledge of nitrifying bacteria, gleaned from scientific papers on nitrifying bacteria in both waste water management and aquarium systems. I’ll summarise...

1. The optimum level of ammonia for nitrifying bacteria is 400ppm. The upper limit is 2750ppm.

2. The optimum level of nitrite for nitrifying bacteria is 200ppm. The upper limit is 7500ppm.

3. Nitrifying bacteria need at least 80% oxygen saturation to thrive. Because of this, 80-84% of these bacteria reside in the filter. In a very clean, well filtered aquarium this proportion is even greater.

4. Nitrifying bacteria will survive for several years without food. They only need water and oxygen to survive.

5. Nitrifying bacteria colonies do not grow to a size governed by the bioload/amount of ammonia available. Since they don’t need to eat to survive, the colony continues to reproduce with the ammonia produced by fish. They will only stop reproducing if zero ammonia is available to them.

6. The brown ‘mulm’ that accumulates in a filter should not be removed (unless absolutely necessary to preserve water flow). It is full of bacteria, archaea, flagellates, ciliates, microscopic worms, and many other organisms. This mulm is largely composed of extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) secreted by the bacteria that house these organisms.

7. Nitrifying bacteria do not need KH. In even a very heavily stocked aquarium they get all the carbon they need from carbon dioxide.

8. There’s no such thing as a ‘bacterial bloom’ in the water column. These are in fact blooms of infusoria, feeding on heterotrophic bacteria.

9. Nitrifying bacteria cannot use ammonium (NH4-). This is why nitrification slows down in acidic water and stops at pH6, because ammonium is virtually non-existent at pH6.

[black ghost]

Ian, I wouldn’t dismiss it so quickly without reading the cited scientific papers. The tests they did here were kept simple so that any aquarist can reproduce them. The page is basically a distillation ( ) of those papers.

[SPACKlick]

I have mixed feelings about the source. I like the impulse the author has to test everything. I dislike their overconfidence and writing style. They tend to refer to reasonable sources and understand them to a reasonable degree.

The myths listed here are mostly things you'll get corrected on in every fish forum.

1. : Beneficial Bacteria Die Rapidly Without Food
2. : High Nitrite Inhibits Growth
3. : High Ammonia Levels Inhibit Growth
4. : There are Special Strains of Beneficial Bacteria
5. : Beneficial Bacteria Stop Reproducing at a Certain Point
6. : During cycling Aquariums Need Some Alkalinity (KH)
7. : “Bacterial Blooms” are Beneficial Bacteria

I think, 2,3 and 7 are uncontroversial. 1,4 and 6 match my experience. and 5 is one where it depends on exactly what myth is being countered. Some people think that bacterial colonies are heavily food limited whereas they're usually overgrown and reduce but are still capable of eating more than is available.

[black ghost]

Prompted by someone on another forum who was familiar with the website, I’ve only just delved deeper into it (I’ve been busy today), and I have to report that the site is by and large utterly ridiculous. He argues against just about everything we know to be true and backed up by an immense amount of scientific research, to such an extent that trying to keep fish using his site alone would end in disaster. He never gives links to any of the “research” he mentions, but instead prefers to weigh the wealth of scientific fact against what some of his friends say.

@Stephen I apologise for getting your hopes up. If you delve into the site a little you’ll be appalled at the rubbish he spouts.

More fool me. I fell for it hook, line and sinker. @plankton , you were dead right to dismiss it so quickly, lol.

[BigBen]

I was going to have a more detailed read of this article this evening after a slim the morning, however I won't bother. After your comment I did have a look through the website and I'm fairly sure, unless I'm mistaken, he says you can keep 933 (tiny) Malawi's in a 450l tank. I can't imagine there will be space for water with that load!
https://aquariumscience.org/index.php/13-stocking/

Edit, he also implies you can have a 5 gallon Malawi tank. What a lunatic.

[black ghost]

Yeah I also had a quick skim of a few sections....

GH is irrelevant, pH shock doesn’t exist (fish don’t need to be acclimatised), white spot is unaffected by heat, adding a lot of fish at once won’t cause an ammonia spike.... and a few more gems that I’ve forgotten.

[VikingMummy2015]

Yeah....he’s a lunatic. I had someone quote him at me as an expert in a Facebook group and couldn’t get past the first page or two. He’s very clever at sounding clever but he carefully picks his references and skims over a lot.