Where Does Filter Bacteria Come From?

[demonmagus]

Hi, just wanted to know where the filter bacteria actually comes from - I've asked before but was just told from the air and was wandering if anyone had more elaborate answers?


thanks

 

[Matty P]

I thought there were very small amounts already on gravel, rocks, bogwood etc. May be wrong though... This bacteria isn't only present in aquatic enviroments, it is also present in land where there is organic matter to be decomposed.

Matty

 

[Bignose]

A lot of it comes in right with the water. I did some research a while back on whether dechlorinater was needed, and found out that there are strains of the ammonia oxidizing bacteria and nitrite oxidizing bacteria that are resistant to chloramine and can even use the amine part of chloramine as an energy source. Here's what a wrote then:

Well, a quick perusal of the scientific literature came up with some rather surprising results.

Firstly, and most surprising to me, the problem ammonia oxidizing bacteria (AOB) and nitrite oxidizing bacteria (NOB) growing in water utilities' facilities is becoming a somewhat serious issue. The chloramine does in fact, promote the growth of AOB and NOB, with the consequences -- written is a nice non-threatening way as -- "..the addition of chloramines can lead to biological instability in a drinking water distribution system by promoting the growth of nitrifying bacteria..." and "The resulting reduction in chloramine residual and development of a microbial community in the distribution system lead to water quality deterioration and violation of drinking water regulations." I think that I might very well have put a little more emphasis on violations of the drinking water regulations.

Basically, because the AOB and NOB grow, they excrete other organic compounds allowing other bacteria to grow. At the very minimum, this additional bacteria will require more chloramine to kill it off, but then, more chloramine promotes more growth of AOB and NOB, and I think you can see where this cycle is going... Here is the really bad news, with this extra growth, all that stuff we don't want in there could grow now, like the coliform bacteria (E. coli -- think spinach), and virues, and Guardia lamblia and so on. All of these are pretty strictly required to be below certain levels by the U.S. EPA, and similarly in other countries.

Secondly, the really interesting part is that in lab test after lab test, the recommended exposure times and concentrations of chloramines do their jobs. The chloramines in the lab kill off all the organics, including the AOB and NOB. However, at the utility side of the issue, nitrification episodes are rather commonplace. One recent study found 63% of U.S. chloramining utilites and 64% of Southern Australian utilities tested positive for nitrifying bacteria.

One hypothesis for the discrepancy between the laboratory studies and operating results is that there are AOB strains growing in full-scale systems that possess a greater chloramine resistance than those studied in the kinetic experiments. Whether the AOB strains used in earlier kinetic studies are representative of significant strains involved in full-scale nitrification episodes has not been confirmed, since there are no published evaluations of AOB diversity in chloraminated distribution systems.

This quote, and the above ones, from Regan, Harrington, and Noguera: "Ammonia- and Nitrite-Oxidizing Bacterial Communities in a Pilot-Scale Chloraminated Drinking Water Distribution System" Applied and Enviromental Microbiology 2002. The study where the %'s came from was Wolfe et al. "Occurrence of nitrification in chloranimated distribution systems" Journal (American Water Works Association), 1996

In other words, the strains that are in the water utilities have become more resistant to chloramines, and can indeed use the ammonia present as sustinence.

And, back to fishtanks, where do the AOB and NOB come from in the first place? Well, if you used tap water, they probably came from your water utility, and if a resistant strain has grown there... that same chloramine resistant strain is probably now growing in your tank too. The Regan et al. study cited above and Regan et al. "Diversity of nitrifying bacteria in full-scale cloranimated distribution systems" Water Research, 2003, was among the first to use DNA sequencing to distinguish all the different AOB and NOB that are growing. Some of the names should be pretty familiar: AOBs Nitrosospira,, Nm. oligotropha and NOBs Nitrospira, Nitrobacter,

So, it seems that AOB and so on can become resistant, or at the very least, as mentioned in the above posts, the chloramine levels are certainly not designed to steralize a colony of bacteria as large in number as we culture in our tanks and so chloraminated water probably is not going to ruin a fishtank.

All that said, I think I am still going to continue to use my conditioner. It is pretty cheap, and better safe than sorry. However, I am not going to fret if I forget, or if a water change is due up and I haven't been to the LFS lately to get a new bottle.

 

[demonmagus]

ah ok. I see. What about RO water then? - but they aren't perfect are they...

 

[rdd1952]

I understand what you are saying Bignose and I remember the other thread where this was discussed but the belief that the bacteria is in the water leaves me wondering why we always tell people that there is no use in moving water from an existing tank into a new one to help in cycling. If there is bacteria present in our tap water, why would it not be present in our tank water? Or is the assumption that there isn't any more present in th tank water than what is in the tap so it doesn't matter where the water comes from?

 

[Aphotic Phoenix]

leaves me wondering why we always tell people that there is no use in moving water from an existing tank into a new one to help in cycling.

In that situation it's not a question of the bacteria being present, but the quantity. Since nitrifying bacteria is an especially slow reproducing bacteria (division ~once every 24 hours), and the quantity of nitrifying bacteria in tank water assumed reasonably low, transferal of tank water could in fact carry more risk than benefit.

Look at it this way...which options would you prefer?
Tank water = risk of unknown pathogen X + low nitrifying bacteria content
Tap water = low pathogen risk + very low number of chlorine resistant nitrifying bacteria
Filter media = risk of unknown pathogen X + large quantity of nitrifying bacteria

What would be nice would be some hard data on the actual bacterial content of aquarium water.

 

[OohFeeshy]

Is there a way of culturing the bacteria in something like a petri dish? Perhaps mixing ammonia with the agar as a food source?

 

[Bignose]

I understand what you are saying Bignose and I remember the other thread where this was discussed but the belief that the bacteria is in the water leaves me wondering why we always tell people that there is no use in moving water from an existing tank into a new one to help in cycling. If there is bacteria present in our tap water, why would it not be present in our tank water? Or is the assumption that there isn't any more present in th tank water than what is in the tap so it doesn't matter where the water comes from?

The number of bacteria in the water is small but not zero. Most people are looking to speed up the cycling process, and the water won't help that much because the number of the bacteria in the water itself is very low. But, when just starting cycling, or in answering "where do the bacteria comes from" a tiny number is greater than zero. Part of it is also that the flow rates and water velocities at the water company are much higher than that which we can achieve or desire in a tank, and the higher the velocity, the easier it is for the water to detach the bacteria from the surface it is living on. There is always some amount of bacteria in the water, it isn't zero, but it is usually very, very small.

 

[rdd1952]

I guess I had never thought about the flow rate but I can see where that could definitely have an effect.

 

[backtotropical]

This is very interesting Bignose. Allow me to ask a question of you, if you will?

I understand that the bacteria could survive in water which has chloramine in, because they have an ammonia source to feed on.

How would they survive in water which has only chlorine, where no ammonia is present? Would they die off, and if so, is it possible that someone could fill their tank with water and start cycling to find that nothing happens because there are no bacteria available?

If this is not the case for some reason and they can survive without ammonia, does that not throw into question whether the supposed 'bacteria booster' solutions, commonly believed to be useless, could actually work, because maybe the bacteria don't need ammonia in the way i understand them to?

Cheers

BTT

 

[Bignose]

The ammonia oxidizing bacteria (AOB) need ammonia and oxygen. There is no getting around that. However, could AOBs survive in water with chlorine only? Well, that comes down to what you mean by survive. Does survive mean live for a month? Then, no, no food source = death. But, does survive mean live long enough to get from the water plant to your house. Then, yes. There will always be some bacteria resistant to chlorine, and they won't be without a food source for more than a few days, so some small number will make it to your house. Also, there are AOB everywhere -- ammonia (amine) is a very common group in the organic chemical world. -NH2 is attached to a lot of chemicals. So, no matter what, unless you were keeping your tank in a sterile room (like at the hospital or at Intel's chip processing facility) some AOB is going to get in. It is impossible for a tank to not start cycling. There are some AOB on your skin, for example.

But, again, going back to my very first statement, the AOB need ammonia and oxygen. How does bacteria in a bottle get oxygen? Sure, there will be some small amount in there when it was put in the bottle, but after that? How does it get more food (ammonia)? Finally, the nail in the coffin on those things in my mind is when Dr. Tim Hovanec discovered that the species of bacteria that everyone thought was in fishtanks turns out NOT to be ones that are in fishtanks. That's a large part of the reason Bio-Spira works where others have failed. Bio Spira contains different species of AOB and NOB (nitrite oxidizing bacteria). Bio-Spira also has to be kept cold so the bacteria's life processes are slowed down. There is also an expiration date on Bio-Spira -- probably the date by which time the bacteria have consumed all of the reserve oxygen and ammonia and nitrite in the pouch and they die off. Those bottles on the shelf are kept at room temperature which means they are going at normal speed -- they should go through all their reserve food much, much more quickly than the refrigerated ones. So, basically, the bacterial starters on the shelf don't have the right species of bacteria in them anyway, and they are going to be dead because they aren't refrigerated and have consumed all of their reserve nutrients. In the U.S., Marlineland has the patent on the fishtank AOB and NOB, so, for now anyway, no other company can even sell the correct species of bacteria. Bio-Spira is the only one. In Europe, you guys have bactinettes, right? Those contain the right species as well. But, I'd be awfully suspicious of any bottle kept at room temperature. I've never seen any proof beyond anecdote that those room-temperature bottles do anything, while I've seen proof (experiments set up with a control) that Bio-Spira works. Not quite as quickly as the package says, but the tanks ended up cycled in 2-3 days instead of 3-4 weeks.

 

[andywg]

In Europe, you guys have bactinettes, right? Those contain the right species as well.

Sadly not.

Bactinettes contains Nitrosomonas as the AOB (which appears to be correct) but contains Nitrobacter as the NOB, which Hovanec et al found to be the incorrect bacteria (studies indicate Nitrospira are the NOB in established tanks). Bactinettes can prevent an ammonia spike, but will still allow a nitrite spike. It's helpful, but not as good as Bio-Spira

 

[Bignose]

Ah, thanks for the correction Andy. I had heard about bactinettes being successful, so I thought they must be the right bacteria, but now I know.

 

[andywg]

I was interested in them so picked up a leaflet. Somewhat strangely Bactinettes claim to provide the bacteria for both FW and SW. Considering how these appear to be different strains (if not species) then one must surely consider that roughly half of the product is useless to the purchaser as it is for the wrong type of water.

I state that the bacteria appear different as brackish fish can be moved from one salinity to another with comparative ease, but a tank has to move slower to prevent die off of the bacteria and a recycle for bacteria at the new salinity.

 

[backtotropical]

Cheers for the info, BN.