Odd Fishless Cycling

[discuspaul]

The study you have linked was undertaken in a controlled environment under controlled circumstances, after oganism starvation periods ranging from a few hours, up to 35 days if memory serves. The final 7 paragraphs of that study, from a laymans's point of view, appear to reflect 'resuscitation' rates and activity taking place slowly, over many hours and days, depending on the length of starvation times, which were relatively short.
There is no indication the efficacy of the nitrifying capability takes place within seconds, but merely that the start of some resuscitation activity begins to be noticed in a short period of time after only a few days of starvation, for example.

Overall, from my understanding of what was being said, and by extrapolating that to the time period of 8 months' of bacteria 'starvation' in the OP's case, as the subject of this thread, the study findings would seem to support what I am saying.
Until such time as the latent bacteria resumed fully resuscitated activity and the necessary reproduced colonization size to deal with the amount of ammonia and nitrites present and being generated, in my view it's not difficult to envision many days of livestock exposure to highly toxic conditions and resulting consequences. A fully completed 'cycle' would need to be established in the tank to produce safe conditions for the livestock.

 

[discuspaul]

Oh, and I am done debating this issue.
THE V has his (or her) views based on his interpretations and conclusions regarding the seeming results of certain scientific studies, and I have mine based on over 50 years' experience as an aquarist, having maintained up to 15 tanks at one time over the years.
The viewers may of course read the studies presented, and judge for themselves.

 

[THE V]

Alas I was hoping to toss a some little snippets of information to encourage some study and some real literature search on the subject. Unfortunately it appears after 50 years of fishkeeping apparently writing diatribe of why my argument is wrong is more attractive than researching evidence to the contrary.

So for the poor reader I wasn't having fun tweaking a little here is a pre-digested explanation of my posts.

Bergeys #1. Documentation my term ubiquitous in nature. Describes the common areas where these genus are found and some of the extreme area's like inside of bricks. Survival in these regions invalidates our good friends argument that they needed a constant source of food, water, etc as these things are not common to area's where they are found.

Bergey's #2. Begins to describe how nitrifiying bacteria for aggregates or biofilms to be able to survive in higher numbers than expected based upon calculations of nitrogen in the region. It also states that in these aggregates they produce "exopolymeric substances" that
"may" protect the organisms from environmental changes.

The google scholar search shows that the word 'may" used in the edition of Bergey's should be changed to "Does".

The NIH Study simply shows that they do not die easily and they recover quickly from starvation (After 35 days full recovery in less than 4 days). It also has a very interesting little phrase that talks about low nutrient conditions and how part of the colony is active while the other is dormant. Really interesting stuff for the aquarium. i.e. a reduction in stocking does not mean a reduction in bacterial colony size.... Not the question at hand but still pretty cool

Bergey's #3 states that they bacteria can survive starvation for more than 1 year in water. This is pretty much the final argument against the thought that they die quickly.

The second question was about what is called "lag time". i.e. what is the time of response from the stimulus.

I only included one article in that one as it contains key documentation and linkage to other information. Now given I did this literature search using my phone while sitting at a little league game it's still pretty good. It goes through and describes a 3 month starvation and a recovery time of up to 50% in 140 hours. One week is 168 hours of course. It also does a very good explanation and literature review in it's introduction. If you research some of the references listed in the page it can take you further towards the goal.

Now the final question that I have not addressed is can they survive drying out + starvation. You can find many places that state that the bacteria die on the internet. Nowhere is any real evidence shown.

However little articles like this in the scholarly research are abundant.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0043135498002000

5-7 days recovery after being dried/lyophilized.

So now that you have a ton of scientific evidence I'll simply state this: My 125 gallon tank busted a seam. I pulled everything out an let it dry out. One full year later I reused the filters (never clean them out), & some of the substrate in a new tank. Took less than a week to fully cycle tank. In 50 years of fish keeping ever done that?

 

[the wizard]

Alas I was hoping to toss a some little snippets of information to encourage some study and some real literature search on the subject. Unfortunately it appears after 50 years of fishkeeping apparently writing diatribe of why my argument is wrong is more attractive than researching evidence to the contrary.

So for the poor reader I wasn't having fun tweaking a little here is a pre-digested explanation of my posts.

Bergeys #1. Documentation my term ubiquitous in nature. Describes the common areas where these genus are found and some of the extreme area's like inside of bricks. Survival in these regions invalidates our good friends argument that they needed a constant source of food, water, etc as these things are not common to area's where they are found.

Bergey's #2. Begins to describe how nitrifiying bacteria for aggregates or biofilms to be able to survive in higher numbers than expected based upon calculations of nitrogen in the region. It also states that in these aggregates they produce "exopolymeric substances" that
"may" protect the organisms from environmental changes.

The google scholar search shows that the word 'may" used in the edition of Bergey's should be changed to "Does".

The NIH Study simply shows that they do not die easily and they recover quickly from starvation (After 35 days full recovery in less than 4 days). It also has a very interesting little phrase that talks about low nutrient conditions and how part of the colony is active while the other is dormant. Really interesting stuff for the aquarium. i.e. a reduction in stocking does not mean a reduction in bacterial colony size.... Not the question at hand but still pretty cool

Bergey's #3 states that they bacteria can survive starvation for more than 1 year in water. This is pretty much the final argument against the thought that they die quickly.

The second question was about what is called "lag time". i.e. what is the time of response from the stimulus.

I only included one article in that one as it contains key documentation and linkage to other information. Now given I did this literature search using my phone while sitting at a little league game it's still pretty good. It goes through and describes a 3 month starvation and a recovery time of up to 50% in 140 hours. One week is 168 hours of course. It also does a very good explanation and literature review in it's introduction. If you research some of the references listed in the page it can take you further towards the goal.

Now the final question that I have not addressed is can they survive drying out + starvation. You can find many places that state that the bacteria die on the internet. Nowhere is any real evidence shown.

However little articles like this in the scholarly research are abundant.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0043135498002000

5-7 days recovery after being dried/lyophilized.

So now that you have a ton of scientific evidence I'll simply state this: My 125 gallon tank busted a seam. I pulled everything out an let it dry out. One full year later I reused the filters (never clean them out), & some of the substrate in a new tank. Took less than a week to fully cycle tank. In 50 years of fish keeping ever done that?

Gee, that sounds like my experience with cycling NEW SW tanks by floating a raw shrimp in them.

 

[TwoTankAmin]

You two are actually both correct. the bacteria can survive dried out for a very long time. There are studies of soil based nitrifiers from similar classes surviving and being viable after many decades. There are lots of research studies on the topic. I have read tons of them over the past year.

But the thing is how fast the bacteria can recover to full functionality. The longer the time, the fewer individual bacterium that survive. So that when conditions improve and they resume nitrification, this can take some time especially since full capacity requires large number and reproducing takes time. There is a difference between how fast a single bacterium can revive and the time a whole colony is at work again. Also the better shape the bacteria are in when forced to go dormant, the longer they can last and the faster they can revive.

In the OP's case it is simply too fast for the amount of time involved, imo. Here are some links to more good studies on this topic.

This study stored bacteria but not dry (both auto and heterotrophs) for seven months and found: "Activities of heterotrophs and nitrifiers can be fully recovered within 16 days and 11 days, respectively. Nitrifiers decayed slower during storage and reinstated rapider during reactivation than heterotrophs."
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960852408002009

Decades old bacteria being viable: Survival of bacterial DNA and culturable bacteria in archived soils from the Rothamsted Broadbalk experiment
"In a preliminary study, to establish if dried soils can provide a historical record of bacterial communities, samples from the Broadbalk soil archive dating back to 1868 were investigated and plots treated with either farmyard manure (FYM) or inorganic fertilizer (NPK) were compared. As anticipated, the processes of air-drying and milling greatly reduced bacterial viability whilst DNA yields declined less and may be preserved by desiccation. A higher proportion of culturable bacteria survived the archiving process in the FYM soil, possibly protected by the increased soil organic matter."
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0038071707004683

My gut is once you pass about 30 days or so you are past the point of any chance at a quick and rapid recovery. But I have stored damp gravel for many many months and had MTS survive. I thought the gravel was dried out, but it wasn't in the middle.

 

[pisces70]

http://www.aquariumguys.com/biozyme8g.html


I'm curious...if beneficial, nitrifying bacteria require ammonia, oxygen and such just to "survive" for any length of time...how do you explain this product?
Beneficial nitrifying bacteria in a dry, powdered form with an unlimited shelf life and they become re-animated and active when added to water.
And there is Caribsea's live sand line of substrates that contain a small amount of water and beneficial bacteria. A sealed bag with no air, no ammonia, no expiration date (not on the bags I had, at least).
In addition there are many liquid products that contain beneficial nitrifying bacteria for cycling a new tank. A sealed bottle with no air, no ammonia, and the expiration date is at least a couple of years down the line.

It seems to me that these bacteria strains, like others, can remain dormant for as long as it takes...they remain dormant "until" they are re-introduced to their basic requirements for living and reproducing and then they thrive once again.
I'm done and I don't intend to continue with this discussion about bacteria and how long it can survive. Just tossing in my two cents.

 

[pisces70]

To the OP, I would simply add a couple of fish. Begin with the hardiest fish that you intend to keep.

The tank will cycle in it's own sweet time whether you attempt to force it by adding chemicals or if you begin the process by adding a couple of fish. I don't place much stock in hitting all the spikes during a cycle since I've had tanks that never spike and they are most definitely cycled. Cycling just isn't an area that causes me any worries since it will happen one way or another. I do know some people swear by it, but to me, ammonia is a toxic cleaning agent and I'm not going to add it to my fish tank. Fish wastes are natural and they are what is going to be in the tank anyway.

I have always done a fish in cycle, I always use aquarium salt in my tanks, and I always use a larger filter than required because that is how I was taught to start up a tank by a very nice LFS lady who had the most pristine, beautiful tanks I've ever seen in a shop. Sadly she passed away and she and her store are deeply missed around here.
Just my own experience, use your best judgement.

Good luck!

 

[TwoTankAmin]

There are a variety of bacteria. One of the ways they are differentiated is in terms of reproduction and how they survive hard times. Another is in terms of how they feed. The nitrifiers that carry the load long term in a tank are what is known as autotrophic bacteria. Their food is not organic it is chemical. They eat ammonia or nitrite and co2, etc. Another type of bacteria are heterotrophic and they need an organic source of food and organic carbon. Both kinds can handle nitrification and often live side by side.

The autotrophic nitrifiers, once settled, live in a biofilm they and other bacteria that live with them secrete. This protects them and is how they are able to survive hard times. They can shut down and go dormant inside this biofilm when food and oxygen levels are low or virtually absent. The heterotrophs have a different survival strategy when things get grim for them. They create spores. Then the parent bacteria dies and the spores can survive for an incredibly long time waiting to come back to life. It is spores that must be in the product, which is why it is not a great product,i mo, as what one really needs are the non-sporulating autotrophic bacteria.

Pisces- ammonia is ammonia, it is NH[SUB]3[/SUB]/NH4[SUP]+[/SUP] whether "natural" or man made. I would even argue the man made is superior to put into a tank to cycle it as it purer- its ammonia and distilled water. When you cycle with fish or fish food etc., you actually are having a lot of other stuff go into the water. Much of the ammonia produced by fish is not from their poop but from their gills as part of respiration, but the next big source of the ammonia in a tank comes from the break down of organics, and this means lots of other stuff, some of which is not wanted in a tank and removed via water changes. This stuff may be natural, i.e. poop, uneaten food, urine, plant matter etc., but that doesn't make it "good". Similarly, just because one doses "man made" pure ammonia, doesn't mean anything unwanted is also going into the tank.

I now dose ammonium chloride when I need to cycle a new tank. The label on the bottle lists the following ingredients: reagent grade ammonium chloride, purified water.

"Reagent - The highest quality commercially available for this chemical. The American Chemical Society has not officially set any specifications for this material."
From http://www.reagents.com/products/reagents/grades.html

What is in my dosing bottle that is bad for a tank?

 

[pisces70]

I did say that this is just my opinion and my experience and everyone can use their OWN judgement on cycling and adding fish. I'm simply saying that cycling a tank isn't brain surgery and shouldn't cause so much anxiety for new fish keepers. The cycle will happen however you choose to do it and it will happen whether you manage to catch all the spikes with testing or not. I learned how to set up tanks 19+ years ago so I suppose I'm "old school". I'm also a former housekeeper and to me ammonia is a cleaning product that I stay away from. I know someone who went blind in one eye from mixing ammonia with bleach, but that's another story. I simply don't use ammonia for anything. I'm only stating my own personal opinion/experience here, that's all, nothing else. I stick with what works best for me and I haven't had any fish deaths or any other issues or problems resulting from doing things the way I was taught by the nice LFS lady.

Cycle your tank with ammonia, with a couple of fish, with fish food, with a raw shrimp...everyone has their own preference of which method they use and each method works at cycling the tank. I don't agree that there is ONE best way to cycle. Do what works best for you.

 

[the wizard]

I did say that this is just my opinion and my experience and everyone can use their OWN judgement on cycling and adding fish. I'm simply saying that cycling a tank isn't brain surgery and shouldn't cause so much anxiety for new fish keepers. The cycle will happen however you choose to do it and it will happen whether you manage to catch all the spikes with testing or not. I learned how to set up tanks 19+ years ago so I suppose I'm "old school". I'm also a former housekeeper and to me ammonia is a cleaning product that I stay away from. I know someone who went blind in one eye from mixing ammonia with bleach, but that's another story. I simply don't use ammonia for anything. I'm only stating my own personal opinion/experience here, that's all, nothing else. I stick with what works best for me and I haven't had any fish deaths or any other issues or problems resulting from doing things the way I was taught by the nice LFS lady.

Cycle your tank with ammonia, with a couple of fish, with fish food, with a raw shrimp...everyone has their own preference of which method they use and each method works at cycling the tank. I don't agree that there is ONE best way to cycle. Do what works best for you.

While there may not be one method that is better than another, there is one method that is more inhumane and that is all I will say.