ZEOVIT

[RnB]

the silence is killing me................

[jetskisteve]

:roll: :roll:

[AJL]

Too quiet.

Layton, you've asked quite a bit about adding bacteria to an existing tank, and having to do so continually. Your implication (heck, your direct statement ) has been that there is no way it could be of any value. I don't understand why you believe that. Zeobac has been shown to contain several strains of bacteria, by a qualified non-zeo-using microbiologist; if the bacteria is not established in a reeftank, dosing is required to introduce, of course. In fact, if one is introducing new strains of bacteria to a tank, it would best be done over a period of time, building up the population, requiring dosing over a period of time of at least a few weeks.

The question then turns to having to keep dosing going forward; i.e. why wouldn't the populations become established and not require continued dosing? There are several possible reasons for this:

- If there is a strong relationship between the bacteria and the zeolites in terms of where the bacteria have an affinity to grow in a biolfilm, changing out the zeolites every 4-6 weeks would require rebuilding the population. Depending on the metabolism of the bacterial strains involved, daily dosing after the zeolites are exchanged could greatly improve reestablishment.

- If zeobac is composed of multiple species, and there is a balance going on that could tilt within a tank depending on which nutrient or food source was a limiting component for growth of one or more of them, it is possible that the zeobac needs to be regularly dosed to replenish a dead population before the balance is tilted. That is, if there are 2 species in the mix, and one of them or an existing tank population outcompetes the other and kills it off over a few days, redosing zeobac would reset the playing field, allowing both to restart and maintaining a balance. As the microbiologist explained, "We are specifically dealing with chemolithotrophs (present in zeobak); therefore they may not be able to live with out a specific nutrient being available. When you begin zeovit, the aquarium keeper is doing so because he has high “bad†nutrients (for corals) present and wants to remove them. Setting up the zeobak bacteria in the tank will act to remove these “bad†nutrients, and over time, after the bacteria have done their job, they will be limited in their growth (and maybe die) because the nutrient they need has been removed. By adding zeobak continuously you may be helping to maintain the equilibrium if one species disappears over time, and in the process, keep the nutrient limited environment created for the corals present (just in case the increased nutrient environment occurs again)."

- Zeobak may provide food for SPS corals as stated in the zeovit guide. Constant replenishing of the bacterial populations will help in keeping this food source robust and available. You could say that the bacteria present in the tank will provide the bacteria needed, and this may be correct for much of the food source, but the zeobak bacteria may be a food source that is not present in the tank normally, which flourishes for a short while due to the food source zeofood being added, but which needs replenishment periodically. Since we can't easily test for bacterial levels in the tank, redosing periodically with zeobac along with zeofood ensures repopulation if the bacteria is severely depleted.

So apparently there are at least a couple of viable theories as to why one would need to dose zeobac/zeofood in a tank just starting zeovit, and why continued dosing would be necessary.

Arthur

[cracker]

to the single poster.

What a beautiful explanation!

It makes the most sense so far.

You da man Arfur!

[ZEOvitANZ]

Didn't you like my explaination when you phoned cracker ?

just kidding

Brendan

[lduncan]

Arthur

I've said a one off dose is all that is necessary, unless you have a complete tank crash.

I've never said that adding bacteria is useless. Just that continually adding bacteria is pointless. So my issue is really with the continual addition.

On your first point, it is highly unlikely that this bacteria are limited exclusively to the zeolite. And again it is highly unlikely than in changing out the zeovit you are going to remove every last organism. My point is is that there will be more than enough bacteria to re-establish populations faster than you could add it.

On your second point, that is right, and exactly what I've been trying to explain. Bacteria that are of no use in the system will decrease in population, limited by supply of food. But that is no justification for continual dosing, quite the opposite

Also just because a system is nutrient limited (ie test results show low values) does not mean that there is not a continual flow of these nutrients through bacterial processes. So you would have to look at uptake rates to determine whether or not there is a real lack of food for these bacteria.

High ambient levels of nutrients are an indication of a discrepancy in production and usage rates in the past.

[HummingBird]

I know nothing about Marine tanks or any of this stuff but as AJL says, what if the bacteria added immediately eats all of the stuff that it eats effectively starving itself? Sort of like Ebola (except that's a virus) It's food would then build up again and then you'd add some more bacteria and it would it the food and then starve again. Perhaps it's just too effective at removing whatever it removes.

I could be totally wrong here, just an idea I got.

[lduncan]

When was the last time you had an ammonia spike after cycling?

Layton

[HummingBird]

Point taken - Twas just a theory I had.

[jetskisteve]

Lets just face it no matter what you say.......Layton will always be right

[AJL]

On your first point, it is highly unlikely that this bacteria are limited exclusively to the zeolite.

And you base this on what, exactly? I have two microbiologists saying this is possible. If you have credentials or sources, I think now would be the time to bring them out. You have no idea what bacteria are present in zeobac, and there are species of bacteria that show affinity for narrow varieties of media to grow on.

And again it is highly unlikely than in changing out the zeovit you are going to remove every last organism.

I don't think that's a prerequisite to wanting to renew the population with dosing after removal of the zeolites. If the metabolism of the bacteria is relatively slow (as shown by the two weeks of daily dosing to build it up when a tank first starts using zeovit), daily redosing of the tank after removal of the zeolites could help rebuild the population dramatically.

My point is is that there will be more than enough bacteria to re-establish populations faster than you could add it.

And again, I'd like your source for this, especially considering you have no idea which bacteria we're talking about. There are all sorts of bacteria, with all sorts of metabolisms, optimal growth conditions, etc. If (and I say if) the bacteria biofilm shows an affinity for the zeolites, removal of 90% of the rocks after 6 weeks could impact the population drastically, and daily dosing of the bacteria could help rebuild the population just as it helped them get established in the first two weeks of adding zeovit to the tank.

On your second point, that is right, and exactly what I've been trying to explain. Bacteria that are of no use in the system will decrease in population, limited by supply of food. But that is no justification for continual dosing, quite the opposite

Not true. As the microbiologists explained, conditions in a reeftank are very dynamic; it is quite possible for a species of bacteria to be limited or outcompeted one day, yet find an ample food supply a few days later. Adding zeobac periodically can certainly help reestablish bacterial populations in a tank, especially since the food source (nutrient) may have started climbing again after it was severely reduced days earlier.

And once again, since you have no knowledge of the strains of bacteria present in zeobac, it is impossible for you to have any sort of certainty about whether they would need to be redosed based on the above supposition.

Also just because a system is nutrient limited (ie test results show low values)

Test results have nothing to do with. If a population of bacteria effectively utilize a nutrient, say phosphate, in a closed environment, the population will drop dramatically, possibly to the point of being effectively wiped out. If the nutrient rises over the next few days, it is quite possible that redosing will allow the population to reblossom and utilize it, whereas without it the population might not reblossom at all. While that may not be true for all species of bacteria, such as the nitrifying bacteria commonly in our tanks, it certainly could be true of unknown bacterial populations that are effective in reducing phosphates - if they are so commonly available and viable, we'd already have them in our tanks. We don't, because we fight phosphates, perhaps because we don't have an additional rate-limiting component commonly in our tanks, which may be where the zeofood comes in.

does not mean that there is not a continual flow of these nutrients through bacterial processes. So you would have to look at uptake rates to determine whether or not there is a real lack of food for these bacteria.

Meaning you agree it's possible, I assume?

You are also ignoring the dosing of zeofood...it is also quite possible that the bacteria need an additional food source along with the nutrient in the tank, available in zeofood, that will limit them, such that dosing the zeofood and zeobac keeps the population stabilized.

I also notice you completely ignore the SPS food aspects that might be a part of the zeobac equation.

The point is, all of these are viable theories as to the metabolism and life cycle of bacteria that could serve a purpose in our tanks. They've all been vetted as viable by at least two microbiologists not associated with zeovit. I think at this point that we would need more than your suppositions to explain why they can't possibly be true. If you have an actual explanation that would eliminate all 3 of these, we'd like to hear it. Words like "highly unlikely" don't mean much when you are discussing unknown bacterial organisms, especially without science to back them up.

Back in August you were quite convinced the zeolites did nothing, were inert. Now they do everything in this system, and the zeobac does nothing. I assume you changed your stance because you finally did some research to show you were wrong about the zeolites; is it not possible you're now wrong about zeobac/zeofood, especially since you know less about its contents than you did about zeolites?

JMHO...

Arthur

[HummingBird]

Hah! So I was right. At least it's possible I was. Saved again by the possibile existence of slow-metabolismed bacterium.

[lduncan]

I'll have a field day on this later, tonight. No time right now.

Brace yourself.

Layton

[AJL]

Hi, Eric...

Our problem is that we are dealing with unknown strains of bacteria, serving unknown functions. As such, there is really no way for people to be even reasonably sure that dosing zeobac continually is unnecessary, since they have no idea what it's supposed to do. There are at least 3 theories that would require the dosing needed in zeovit. I don't know the policy here re: posting links to other forums, but if it's allowed, I can post threads showing the results of testing by a microbiologist at Cornell University, and threads showing that he and other microbiologists believe the above theories are viable.

Layton attempts to compare the bacteria with our "standard" nitryifying bacteria he's had experience with, and that perhaps is quite a false comparison. There are all sorts of bacteria, and the odds that zeobac contains highly viable common strains of bacteria are low; if they were that common and that viable, no one would have phosphate problems.

Arthur

[AJL]

I'll have a field day on this later, tonight. No time right now.

Brace yourself.

Excellent. I'll line up my microbiologists, and you line up yours. We'll have a nice, civil discussion. Since my PhD is in Computer Science, and you're in school for electrical engineering, I assume we'll want to make sure we're vetting our theories appropriately through qualified personnel.

Arthur

[lduncan]

This is going to take me a while, so before I reply properly re-read what you wrote, and think about it logically. And post anything that you think doesn't quite add up.

PhD in CS you should know logic? (I hope)

Layton

[AJL]

Ah, ah, ah...doesn't work like that. You state that continued zeobac dosing does nothing, IYO. I present 3 theories as to why it might be necessary, given that we know next to nothing about the strains of bacteria involved. It's your turn now to explain why those three can't possibly be true. So far, all I've heard is "well, our other bacteria don't work that way, so it's unlikely". Basically, you feel it's unlikely that the bacteria would grow mostly on zeolites, and that they can't die off if their food source/nutrient is depleted because there will always be a trace, just like our tanks don't show ammonia after cycling. Both of those suppositions are based on your experience with the common bacteria in our tanks, which is not likely what is in zeobac.

I'm hoping you have more than that, and that you have a good understanding of the variations in bacterial populations and their life cycles. I have a little, but since I wanted to make sure, I've consulted experts in the field; I assume you'll do the same?

Anxiously awaiting your reply.

Arthur

[lduncan]

Ok to respond to your post immediately above.

Basically, you feel it's unlikely that the bacteria would grow mostly on zeolites

No. I think that it is highly unlikely, to the point of being impossible, that the bacteria which is a part of this system, is found exclusively (ie no other trace of it in your system) on the zeolite contained within the reactor. And that all traces are removed when you replace the media.

and that they can't die off if their food source/nutrient is depleted because there will always be a trace

If the conditions are appropriate and there is the required food available there will be a population. The size of this population is irrelevant, but will grow and shrink as determined by these parameters.

which is not likely what is in zeobac

VERY bold assumption. As is the assumption that the bacteria in zeobak are actually a significant part of the system.

Layton

[AJL]

No. I think that it is highly unlikely, to the point of being impossible, that the bacteria which is a part of this system, is found exclusively (ie no other trace of it in your system) on the zeolite contained within the reactor. And that all traces are removed when you replace the media.

But I didn't say that. In fact, we only replace 90% of the media, so it wouldn't be possible for me to make that claim. I'm not sure why you're trying to say I did.

However, if the population is decimated, literally, by a 90% replacement of the zeolites, it is not out of the question that dosing zeobac and zeofood can help replenish the population quite a bit more quickly than simply waiting.

If the conditions are appropriate and there is the required food available there will be a population. The size of this population is irrelevant, but will grow and shrink as determined by these parameters.

But conditions in a reeftank can change quite dynamically. The growth rate and life cycle of the bacteria involved may be drastically different than the common nitrifying bacteria to which you've been exposed. Since you don't know what type of bacteria is involved, and you have no idea what zeofood contains, how is it possible for you to make blanket statements about the viability of those bacterial populations?

Speaking of the rules of logic, I'm afraid you've taken quite a difficult position. You believe that zeobac does nothing. In order for your premise to fall apart, one must simply provide a single theory that disputes the contention. Unfortunately, you have no idea what is in zeobac, or how it interacts with zeofood, which is dosed at the same time. As such, all one need do is show a theory that would explain a dynamic bacterial population that needs replenishment (e.g. redosing) in order to have an effect on external parameters (e.g. reeftank nutrients). I don't even need a reeftank example to do it. Your body is a veritable treasure trove of bacteria. Exposure to additional bacteria of a species already present in your body can potentially cause an equilibrium in your body to tilt in one direction or another, causing illness. How could that happen with your body already in equilibrium with the bacteria strain in question? Why would "redosing" in that case have any effect whatsoever?

I haven't even bothered bringing in the theory proposed by the microbiologist from Cornell re: recombinant strains of bacteria because likely it won't even be necessary; there are enough mundane examples of bacterial life cycles that dispute your assertion that additional dosing of previously-dosed bacteria to a dynamic system (such as a reef tank or a human body) will do nothing.

Logically, you're attempting to prove a negative, which is already difficult enough, and you're doing it with no actual knowledge of the bacteria involved or the zeofood ingredients. Good luck.

Btw, it's late for me here, so I'll be heading off to bed. I look forward to your replies tomorrow.

Arthur

[jetskisteve]

[lduncan]

And in reply to the other post:

And you base this on what, exactly? I have two microbiologists saying this is possible. If you have credentials or sources, I think now would be the time to bring them out. You have no idea what bacteria are present in zeobac, and there are species of bacteria that show affinity for narrow varieties of media to grow on.

As explained above.

If the metabolism of the bacteria is relatively slow (as shown by the two weeks of daily dosing to build it up when a tank first starts using zeovit),

What if zeobac is not the critical part of the system? Sorry, but how can you summise that because the manufacturer recommends continual dosing, the metabolism of whatever bacteria is in zeobac is relatively slow? What if something else contained within the zeobac bottle has another effect?

daily redosing of the tank after removal of the zeolites could help rebuild the population dramatically.

No, the appropriate food and conditions will have an exponentially larger effect on populations than adding a few 10's or 100's of billion bacteria from a bottle every day.

There are all sorts of bacteria, with all sorts of metabolisms, optimal growth conditions, etc.

Exactly, so if the conditions are right, the populations will be there. No bottle of bacteria will determine whether conditions are right.

If (and I say if) the bacteria biofilm shows an affinity for the zeolites, removal of 90% of the rocks after 6 weeks could impact the population drastically, and daily dosing of the bacteria could help rebuild the population just as it helped them get established in the first two weeks of adding zeovit to the tank.

Even if you removed all the zeolites there is likely to still be a significant population of any bacteria, more than the 10's of billions you are adding from the bottle.

Not true. As the microbiologists explained, conditions in a reeftank are very dynamic; it is quite possible for a species of bacteria to be limited or outcompeted one day, yet find an ample food supply a few days later. Adding zeobac periodically can certainly help reestablish bacterial populations in a tank, especially since the food source (nutrient) may have started climbing again after it was severely reduced days earlier.

The zeovit system claims to reduce nitrate and phosphate through a combination of biological and chemical processes. I am talking about bacteria which feed on these nutrients. As such, available phosphate and nitrate does not just disappear and reappear over night. If we were talking about some other trace nutrient then this may be the case.

However if nitrate and phosphate fluxed like this the tank would be highly unstable you would not be able to keep much alive for very long.

Test results have nothing to do with. If a population of bacteria effectively utilize a nutrient, say phosphate, in a closed environment, the population will drop dramatically, possibly to the point of being effectively wiped out.

The population will drop because there is not enough food for ALL of them. Phosphate availability in a system is not like a tap. It is not just turned on and off. There is continual "input" from a variety of sources even when measured as low on a test kit there is still a "flow" of phosphate through the system. The populations will NOT be wiped out if the right conditions and food are available.

If the nutrient rises over the next few days, it is quite possible that redosing will allow the population to reblossom and utilize it, whereas without it the population might not reblossom at all.

Why would the population not grow?

While that may not be true for all species of bacteria, such as the nitrifying bacteria commonly in our tanks, it certainly could be true of unknown bacterial populations that are effective in reducing phosphates

LOL it MIGHT be true for a UNKNOWN bacteria which happen to use phosphate. Also how do you know that bacteria is responsible for dropping phosphates when using zeovit? How do you even know that phosphates actually drop?

if they are so commonly available and viable, we'd already have them in our tanks.

There is a reason why they would not be in your tank. The conditions are not suitable. If they aren't viable, then why are you trying to add them to your tank?

We don't, because we fight phosphates, perhaps because we don't have an additional rate-limiting component commonly in our tanks, which may be where the zeofood comes in.

Personally I have never fought phosphates, but that's beside the point. You already have bacteria to reduce phosphate in your tank. Why are your phosphate levels high? Well could be another limiting factor in the growth of the bacteria, whether it is another molecule, or substrate. Really comes down to not having the perfect conditions. Adding bacteria is not going to change the conditions. There are a couple of elements which have been found to be limiting to some processes in aquaria. Guess what they are.

Meaning you agree it's possible, I assume?

It's possible, but put into the context we're talking about here it is never going to happen, with any of the methods we use.

You are also ignoring the dosing of zeofood

Yip, because I have been talking about the insignificant effect of continual dosing on populations. Zeofood has no bearing on this.

I also notice you completely ignore the SPS food aspects that might be a part of the zeobac equation

Yip, again because I have been talking about the insignificant effect of continual dosing on populations.

Back in August you were quite convinced the zeolites did nothing, were inert.

In the traditional use of zeolites they don't.

and the zeobac does nothing

I said I believe it does nothing (not literally, but with respect to the system). Again it's about the insignificant effect of continual dosing.

But I didn't say that. In fact, we only replace 90% of the media, so it wouldn't be possible for me to make that claim. I'm not sure why you're trying to say I did.

I never said that you said that. I was restating my position.

However, if the population is decimated, literally, by a 90% replacement of the zeolites, it is not out of the question that dosing zeobac and zeofood can help replenish the population quite a bit more quickly than simply waiting.

Adding bacteria (if it is the same blah blah blah) will increase the population quicker given appropriate conditions. But the fact is, is that the amount you are adding is so insignificant in comparison to the existing bacteria's population and reproductive abilities. That is may make only hours (or less) difference in the population numbers. What's the point?

But conditions in a reeftank can change quite dynamically

What conditions specifically are you talking about?

Since you don't know what type of bacteria is involved, and you have no idea what zeofood contains, how is it possible for you to make blanket statements about the viability of those bacterial populations?

Quite simple. All living things have requirements, if those are met they will live and reproduce.

Exposure to additional bacteria of a species already present in your body can potentially cause an equilibrium in your body to tilt in one direction or another, causing illness. How could that happen with your body already in equilibrium with the bacteria strain in question? Why would "redosing" in that case have any effect whatsoever?

LOL

previously-dosed bacteria to a dynamic system

do you know what dynamic means in this context? It has absolutely nothing to do with wild swings in parameters.

Logically, you're attempting to prove a negative

I'm not attempting to prove anything.

Arthur you shouldn't take peoples word for things. Do a bit of research to confirm and check what you are saying.

And also Arthur, I had enough of your stupid replies and reading comprehension problems on other boards. Don't be surprise if I don't bother replying to any other of your posts on this topic.

Layton

[chimera]

:lol: this is just getting funnier by the day!!!

my dad can beat up your dad

no he cant, my dad could.

could not, my dad is tougher

well my dad has a bigger faster car than your dad

no he doesnt, my dads car is the bigger one

just because its bigger doesnt mean its faster

yes it does, my dads car is bigger and faster than your dads

no it isnt, im telling my mummy on you

[lduncan]

Lets just face it no matter what you say.......Layton will always be right

Steve, If there is one thing i've learnt from my job, as well as during my degree, it's that you should let people know exactly how ignorant you are of a particular topic from the get go. That way they can't blame you if you stuff up . Also, and more importantly, you learn a lot more, than if you were to pretend you know everything.

I have been known to be wrong . And have no problem admitting that when the time comes.

Layton

[chimera]

...when the time comes

when hell freezes over? :lol:

[lduncan]

when hell freezes over? :lol:

No, when i'm wrong... Wait a minute, yeah, I'll go with when hell freezes over.