So Where Does The Bacteria Actually Come From?

[xoedusk]

Any ideas? Seems weird that a bacterium that loves ammonia would be floating around.

 

[zoekin8yg]

They can be present in the water, and some are air borne and you can transfer them through contact. Thats without actually looking into it so I could be wrong.

 

[Bignose]

The vast majority of the bacteria do come in with your drinking water. No water kept in anything other than a clean, sterile room (something like the room Intel uses to make microprocessors) will be completely free of life. Life is very efficient about using water however possible. And, basically, the water company only worries about sending out bad bacteria like E. coli out with their water, not harmless (to humans) bacteria like Nitrospira.

Actually, it is becoming a growing problem that these bacteria are growing resistant to to chloramines (very popular because it is far more stable than chlorine alone). Because they are resistant, chloramines don't kill them, and the resistant strains can actually use the ammonia part of the the chloramines. Unfortunately, by using it up, less chloramine is available to kill off the bad bacteria, like E. coli.

Finally, it is not surprising that ammonia and nitrite oxidizing bacteria are present in large amounts at water treatment plants. The water they take in is full of ammonia and nitrites, from fertilizer run off, from decaying plant matter, from a lot of sources. It is actually a pretty good testament how clean they get the water to send back out from the soup they take in sometimes.

 

[xoedusk]

The vast majority of the bacteria do come in with your drinking water. No water kept in anything other than a clean, sterile room (something like the room Intel uses to make microprocessors) will be completely free of life. Life is very efficient about using water however possible. And, basically, the water company only worries about sending out bad bacteria like E. coli out with their water, not harmless (to humans) bacteria like Nitrospira.

Actually, it is becoming a growing problem that these bacteria are growing resistant to to chloramines (very popular because it is far more stable than chlorine alone). Because they are resistant, chloramines don't kill them, and the resistant strains can actually use the ammonia part of the the chloramines. Unfortunately, by using it up, less chloramine is available to kill off the bad bacteria, like E. coli.

Finally, it is not surprising that ammonia and nitrite oxidizing bacteria are present in large amounts at water treatment plants. The water they take in is full of ammonia and nitrites, from fertilizer run off, from decaying plant matter, from a lot of sources. It is actually a pretty good testament how clean they get the water to send back out from the soup they take in sometimes.

Thanks for that info. If that is true.. that the bacteria come from the water... then I wonder if doing more water changes during cycling would help increase the chance of the bacteria getting into the filter?

 

[Bignose]

It is unlikely. Consider that every day in the cycling process the number of bacteria roughly doubles. Let's say the water had 100 in the first place, from the tap (this is just an example, I have no idea how many would really be in a tank.) This becomes 200 on day 2 then 400 on day 3 then 800 on day 4. You can see how very quickly the addition of the possible extra 100 from new water adds only a small amount. Especially when you get to day 10 (1,024,000 in this example).

Now, I always recommend water changes if you cycle with fish, because the pollution levels will be kept lower and prevent excessive harm to to fish. Water changes do not slow down the bacteria's growth.

This is because a dynamic equilibrium is set up in the tanks. The bacteria will always grow so long as the rate of ammonia production by the fish is greater than the rate at which ammonia is processed by the bacteria. The instantaneous level of ammonia does not matter, only the difference in the two rates.

Practically, what this means is that you can do even a 100% water change during the cycling process and not disrupt the process (so long as the other water change rules are followed, like the new water and old water have the same temperature, etc.). And, you don't have to worry about losing bacteria in the water since the overwhelming majority of bacteria are sessile, not mobile, and adhere to the filter and gravel and tank walls.

So, in synopsis, do those water changes if you cycle with fish! It will not slow down the process, and keep the fish healthy and happy for a long time.

 

[xoedusk]

It is unlikely. Consider that every day in the cycling process the number of bacteria roughly doubles. Let's say the water had 100 in the first place, from the tap (this is just an example, I have no idea how many would really be in a tank.) This becomes 200 on day 2 then 400 on day 3 then 800 on day 4. You can see how very quickly the addition of the possible extra 100 from new water adds only a small amount. Especially when you get to day 10 (1,024,000 in this example).

Now, I always recommend water changes if you cycle with fish, because the pollution levels will be kept lower and prevent excessive harm to to fish. Water changes do not slow down the bacteria's growth.

This is because a dynamic equilibrium is set up in the tanks. The bacteria will always grow so long as the rate of ammonia production by the fish is greater than the rate at which ammonia is processed by the bacteria. The instantaneous level of ammonia does not matter, only the difference in the two rates.

Practically, what this means is that you can do even a 100% water change during the cycling process and not disrupt the process (so long as the other water change rules are followed, like the new water and old water have the same temperature, etc.). And, you don't have to worry about losing bacteria in the water since the overwhelming majority of bacteria are sessile, not mobile, and adhere to the filter and gravel and tank walls.

So, in synopsis, do those water changes if you cycle with fish! It will not slow down the process, and keep the fish healthy and happy for a long time.

Good points! I like them.

So do you think there is this bacteria in the filter/water from day 1? And people only see a reduction in ammonia in 3 weeks (fishless) because it takes that many bacteria to make an impact?

 

[Bignose]

So do you think there is this bacteria in the filter/water from day 1? And people only see a reduction in ammonia in 3 weeks (fishless) because it takes that many bacteria to make an impact?

Yes, almost exactly this. There will always be a tiny few in the water, since life almost always finds a way to get to water. It probably takes billions of bacteria to make an impact (remember just how small these creatures are!). Which takes time to build up.

 

[Underwurlde]

I thought bacterial 'split' every 20 minutes. i.e. their numbers (IF unchecked) doubled every 20 minutes. (Of course they are probably being killed off at slightly less than this rate and is dependant on food sources).

Some chap worked out that if bacteria were allowed to exponentially double at this rate (regardless of an available food source and death rate), starting with a single bacteria, they would occupy the entire universe in 3 months....

I bet he's got no mates.

Andy

 

[InaneCathode]

Lol, i heard someone say once "lets not let logic get in the way of our wild, pointless spectulation! This is a forum after all!"

heh

AFAIK the 20 minute thing comes from yeast. Bacteria are all different.

 

[Creature Seeker]

It is unlikely. Consider that every day in the cycling process the number of bacteria roughly doubles. Let's say the water had 100 in the first place, from the tap (this is just an example, I have no idea how many would really be in a tank.) This becomes 200 on day 2 then 400 on day 3 then 800 on day 4. You can see how very quickly the addition of the possible extra 100 from new water adds only a small amount. Especially when you get to day 10 (1,024,000 in this example).

Now, I always recommend water changes if you cycle with fish, because the pollution levels will be kept lower and prevent excessive harm to to fish. Water changes do not slow down the bacteria's growth.

This is because a dynamic equilibrium is set up in the tanks. The bacteria will always grow so long as the rate of ammonia production by the fish is greater than the rate at which ammonia is processed by the bacteria. The instantaneous level of ammonia does not matter, only the difference in the two rates.

Practically, what this means is that you can do even a 100% water change during the cycling process and not disrupt the process (so long as the other water change rules are followed, like the new water and old water have the same temperature, etc.). And, you don't have to worry about losing bacteria in the water since the overwhelming majority of bacteria are sessile, not mobile, and adhere to the filter and gravel and tank walls.

So, in synopsis, do those water changes if you cycle with fish! It will not slow down the process, and keep the fish healthy and happy for a long time.

I'm doing a cycle with fish and I'm happy doing regular water changes. How often do I need to do them and how much? It's a rio 180 and I'm currently changing two 10litre buckets of water a day. Nitrate is around 0.3, no Ammonia yet, only put fish in on Sunday.

...

...

 

[Bignose]

I thought bacterial 'split' every 20 minutes. i.e. their numbers (IF unchecked) doubled every 20 minutes. (Of course they are probably being killed off at slightly less than this rate and is dependant on food sources).

Some chap worked out that if bacteria were allowed to exponentially double at this rate (regardless of an available food source and death rate), starting with a single bacteria, they would occupy the entire universe in 3 months....

I bet he's got no mates.

Andy

Some bacteria do, but most don't. The bacteria we use in our tanks double roughly every 24 hours. I think that the rule of thumb, if you know nothing whatsoever about a particular species of bacteria, assume it doubles like every 4 hours. I think the record is some species whose doubling time is a low as 10 minutes, but usually a few hours is typical.

Creature S, some time ago, I worked out when the ammonia gets to emergency levels: see this older thread http/www.fishforums.net/index.php?showtopic=154313

 

[Underwurlde]

Ha, indeed.

Yep, BN's thread there is good info. (Thanks for that BTW).

Andy

PS
Quick everyone do the MicroSoft Excel dance!