The Puffer Forum

But remember we're talking about bacteria that reproduces once every 15 minutes is it?
Versus bacteria that reproduces once every 12 hours is it?

I also saw something to the effect of 'since the bacteria utilize the nitrogen compounds for respiration it becomes the dominant bacteria in the culture and growth is inhibited among other strains'... something like that.. I'll see if I can find it again.

But that's actually good imo, because these bacteria do way more than the classics /shrug
We're talking proteins, various other unwanted chemicals, antibacterials, antifungals, immune boosters, antibiotic secretions...

See if you can find that reference - The very rapid metabolism and fast reproduction rate can make a bacteria less stable over time(easier to starve), while a strain that reproduces more slowly might be more stable. I would be very interested to see what bacteria are present in the tank 3 months from now, to see which of these maintain population and which are replaced by other strains or overpopulate and die off on their own.

Ya I'm looking for it, it was one of the umpteen bazillion pages I've looked through today lol (slow day heh)

Otherwise I think that the bacteria dying off isn't necessarily correct per se...

" A pathway that leads to endospore formation is initiated when the bacterium is starved. Endospore formation is actually desired and serves as a great example of prokaryotic development and differentiation. These spores are quite tolerant of heat, cold, radiation, and other environmental stresses."

And of course unless all fish are gone from the aquatic environment, the nitrogenous materials will come back and reconsitute the vegitative cells/endospores.

I've never heard of the classic bateria doing that, that's another reason I'm really liking this stuff, the sensitivity just isn't present /shrug

Sorry still looking for the other reference, but here was another to support that they won't "die" lol

"Rather, their differentiation begins when a population of vegetative cells passes out of the exponential phase of growth, usually as a result of nutrient depletion. Mature spores have no detectable metabolism, a state that is described as cryptobiotic. They are highly resistant to environmental stresses such as high temperature (some endospores can be boiled for several hours and retain their viability), irradiation, strong acids, disinfectants, etc. Although cryptobiotic, they retain viability indefinitely such that under appropriate environmental conditions, they germinate into vegetative cells. Endospores are formed by vegetative cells in response to environmental signals that indicate a limiting factor for vegetative growth, such as exhaustion of an essential nutrient. They germinate and become vegetative cells when the environmental stress is relieved. Hence, endospore-formation is a mechanism of survival rather than a mechanism of reproduction."

Gosh, where's RTR when you need him???

Yes, I think every board could use a good RTR.

Ahh here ya go Nick, it wasn't a lack of nutrient thing.
"Consider how this organism functions in a competitive microbial community: when carbon-, nitrogen- and phosphorus-nutrient levels fall below the bacterium's optimal threshold, it produces spores. Scientists have demonstrated that Bacillus subtilis concurrently produces antibiotics and spores. Antibiotic production increases B. Subtilis's chance at survival as the organism produces spores and a toxin that might kill surrounding gram positive microbes that compete for the same nutrients."

I believe the classic bacteria are gram positive as well?

PufferPunk
None of this is my opinion, this is all research that has been done with these bacteria /shrug

Oh, and yes, this is all random google searching yielding results from .edu's and .org sites mostly. None of the stuff I've recorded here actually came from the product vendor. They actually have nothing on the chemical/biological processes their product does...

But seriously, is it too much to consider that the science of aquariums is evolving?

I mean seriously, science and the world is going to change whether or not we like it.
Check this out from Slashdot today:
"The BBC reports that British scientists have manufactured embryos containing genetic material from a man and two women. Under the procedure developed by scientists from Newcastle University, the nuclei from a father's sperm and a mother's egg are transferred into a second woman's egg 'from which the nucleus had been removed, but which retained its mitochondria.' The research, which may 'help mothers with rare genetic disorders have healthy children,' used embryos left over from in-vitro fertilization treatment."
http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/04 ... ent-Embryo

Are people going to still argue that natural conception is "still the best way". Probably.
But that only shows the unwillingness to learn/research /shrug heh

I find it funny, this forum is somewhat passive and actually has asked positive questions that probe into the system of the product.
On other forums, wow, as you might have seen in some of the reefcentral posts, people who know nothing about the science behind the solution slam people for even posting anything about it... truly shows you how ignorant some people can be.

I'm not a know it all, I completely change my mind if it can be proven to be wrong or not the best way, but I will definately defend something (even if I don't agree with it) against those who don't have the consideration to hear others out.

But yes, perhaps the test of time is the only thing, but I'm sure even then people will say "OHHHH! SEE all the bacteria died and it's the TRUE bacteria now!"
And people may agree with that, but until they bring evidence forwards to back that statement up, I can't make that call, but from the science I've seen through research, the "classic" nitrifiers are not that strong of a bacteria and do not have any sort of survival mechanism. If I'm wrong, feel free to post a link /shrug

And still, with all the posts I've done across different forums, not 1 person has come up with a link to someone who has used the product and it failed.
Am I the only one who finds this curious especially since the product has been around for 13 years or more? lol seriously!!!!

I just wish someone woud have shown me this product when I started, would have saved me a lot of time and money....

Personally, the product working or not working isn't what I'm getting at, so much as if it works(which it seems to have), what exactly it does. It sounds like these bacteria multiply VERY quickly, consume all nutrients, then turn into spores which wait until food becomes plentiful again, as opposed to the strains observed in mature tanks, which multiply very slowly but tolerate a significant variation in nutrient levels. To me it sounds like a combination of bacteria that makes nitrification easier for other bacteria, bacteria that can consume wastes very quickly, but spore when they run out of food, and a few others that simply assist in general waste breakdown.

The reason I'm interested in what populations would be present in 3 months is because I want to know how it helps. For instance, it's actually BETTER if these bacteria spore and then die off when the usual strains take over after their initial run, because after that, should the tank crash for some reason down the road, the spores should wake up when ammonia spikes and help control the crashing tank while the long-term colonies rebuild.

If they do work like Nick is saying that would be cool. It would be a failsafe for anything bad to happen concidering that the bacteria in this product are very tolerable to chemicals and such would make it alot harder to accidentally crash your tank with meds and other chemicals or such getting in the tank. Just throw in some carbon and let this new stuff come out of spore form long enough to let the other build back up and then go back into spore form. I would really like to here RTR's comments on this stuff and how he thinks it would work though. Im going to school for computer engineering not micro-biology.

Ya, I'm not sure on the combination of both living~
I haven't looked at any info about population wise, what stay alive versus what stays dormant, but if there is both in the tank, it seems they're probably more aggresive than the classic bacteria? Let alone I wonder how the 'nutrient lacking going dormant releasing toxins to other bacteria' stage plays out...
Either way I don't think ALL the bacteria would go dormant at once, I mean even after doing a 100% wc there's at least .25ppm ammonia, so really, since that is a continual thing, and doc's/proteins are constantly being produced along with whatever other byproducts introduced into the water from the fish, I would think there would be at least a constant even minimal amount of this RNB bacteria in the tank...
But like Bcummings is saying, I'm not a microbiology major
I'll have to setup a tank though with no substrate and toss a goldfish in, I'm sure with various tests at least SOME idea of what the constant nutrient/nitrogen "presence" is in the tank could be ballparked...
I was actually thinking about doing that minus the goldfish and using fish food, and then dumping certain stuff in the tank that would in "classic" tanks, kill the bacteria. Even something as dramatic as oil etc that you would find in waste management. That's one of the examples in the patent is "a koi pond had an oil spill, in 24/48 hours after addition of the bacteria the oil was cleaned up". Cause that's always a possibility in the home, not necessarily oil, but random stuff that doesn't belong in a fish tank could find it's way in there via kids or whatever... I think it also cleans and breaks down soap, so that's a plus

As far as the example though in response to the 'are you sure it wasn't the bacteria in the tank from the substrate' question, ya I'm sure. The tank crashed when my sis switched out all the filter pads to 'help out'
And that was within a week or so after completely cycling, so not a dominant presence of bacteria was present, and the day I cleaned the tank completely including multiple movements of the sand etc, the levels right before adding the new bacteria, and doing a couple 50% wc's was like 3+ amm, 3+ trites(verified with paper strips vs my API which doesn't show total). All I have to say though is thank god for Amquel... heh

Where is RTR anyways? He ok?

He had eye surgery. I don't think it went well. Something about a reaction to his meds & then never heard back from him. I wish I had his phoe number.

Hopefully he'll be alright :/

Just an update I asked the distributor for more info and the thoughts about what I've spoken here, but according to them evidently it does consume nitrogenous compounds, test and proven correct in a lab...
So I guess there must be something else I haven't seen..
Doesn't surprise me though, there's a crap ton of materials out there on the bacterias..
Might have to order a pdf or two on the strains

I was wondering what your final total volume (liters) was for your 5 pounds of washed Tri Base Pelletized Carbon?

For a 125 gallon freshwater fish only tank I would need a minimum of 20 pounds of Tri Base Pelletized Carbon and I am trying to desern how many liters that would be. I was looking at just multiplying your results by four to get a rough approximation.

I am currently running two large canisters filters on the 125 gallon tank that hold a total of 8 liters of bio media but I am guessing from the sound of it that 20 pounds of Tri Base Pelletized Carbon is going to exceed that capacity.