Life span of transferred bacteria?

[Veloth]

This should be made a sticky. I learned a lot from this thread.

 

[KarlTh]

All of the commercial products do contain live cultures at the beginning.

Stores are not that careful with the keeping them in the right conditions. They assume if it's in the bottle its good for a few years.

They also usually don't ship these products refrigerated. If you've ever spent time unloading semi trailers you'll know that they get very hot in the summer. I've seen them get over 120+F back when I worked in warehouses. Nitrifying bacteria start to die off at 105-110F. Bio-spira worked more often simply becuase of the refrigerated shipping.

Also my suspicion. Since both Nitrobacter and Nitrospira can do the job (although once things mature one or the other will dominate depending on the conditions) it doesn't actually matter which you add as long as the things are actually alive .

The other thing this whole business of exponential bacterial growth predicts is that if you're doing a fishless cycle, adding a good source of existing bacteria will make a massive difference, and not doing so is probably behind the 40 or 50 day cycles we read about on here from time to time. I suspect that "squeezings" are pretty worthless (although better than nothing) compared with actual media, carefully transported. I also suspect it's worth doing a second innoculation once nitrite starts to rise because if this has taken more than a few days most of the nitrobacter/nitrospira are going to have gone into a dormant phase and will take a while to wake up; adding bacteria at this point will mean that one will not have to wait for them to be activated.

 

[ct-death]

I found a great article for a more indepth, scientific read from Purdue University by James E. Alleman, Ph.D. and Kurt Preston, "Behavior and Physiology of Nitrifying Bacteria" ARTICLE HERE

Sorry I did not find the date of publish, but it is post Alleman's publication.

Here is the paragraph in summary of: Nitrifier Death and Decay

Bacterial decay and death during prolonged resting or inactive periods occurs due to the natural onset of entropy. Aerobic bacteria may attempt to retard and prolong this tendency toward disorder through a process known as endogenous respiration, whereby a nominal energy flow is secured for limited maintenance purposes. This energy provides for resynthesis of critical metabolic material, as well as facilitating such activities as transport, motility, and pressure and heat control.
Our best estimate for the collective impacts of decay, endogenous metabolism, death, and predation on nitrifiers presently ranges from 0.05 to 0.12 days-1 . Correspondingly, these rates imply that resting, non-active nitrifiers will deteriorate at rates of 5 to 12% per day.
However, these values were typically inferred from heterotrophic bacteria rather than specifically measured for nitrifiers. Hence, conclusive data to clarify our understanding of nitrification-related decay and death is lacking.
Cell decay should certainly be expected with these organisms, but it is questionable whether their physiology would yield endogenous respiration activity during substrate-limited periods in a fashion comparable to that associated with heterotrophs. Indeed, energy procurement for these resting nitrifiers would probably depend more so upon external substrate availability than the mobilization and uptake of nitrogenous substrates found inside these cells. Resting nitrifying bacteria might consequently be expected to decay at a far lower pace than that which would be expected for heterotrophs. Correspondingly,indications within our contemporary literature that nitrifiers decay at a rate comparable to that of heterotrophs appear to be erroneous. In fact, unpublished values appear to be considerably lower (at about 0.01 to 0.02 days-1; Alleman, et al., 1991).
Slow decay and death rates for nitrifiers should, however, be considered a positive attribute. They can be shifted (e.g., taken off-line) into a dormant or resting state for extended periods with less concern about retaining their viability.

and more here: http://cobweb.ecn.purdue.edu/~alleman/

 

[THE V]

I would guess that it was written no later than 1992. Since that time there have been well over a thousand different papers published on this topic. It will work as a baseline however remember that most of the info is over 20 years old. In an actively studied field in 20 years can completely reverse opinions and conclusions. Research science is continuously changing as new tools, techniques, and concepts are discovered/created.

• 
  [*]Alleman, J.E. (1987). "Light Induced Nitrosomonas Inhibition." Water Research, 21, 499.
  [*]Alleman, J.E. (1985). "Elevated Nitrite Occurrence in Biological Wastewater Treatment," Water Science and Technology, 17, 409.
  [*]Alleman, J.E. (1991). et al., "Resting Cell Activity by Nitrifying Microorganisms." Water Research, (Accepted for publication; presently being revised). Blum, D.J.W. and Speece, R.E. (1991). "A Database of Chemical Toxicity to Environmental Bacteria and its use in Interspecies Comparisons and Correlations." Research Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation, 63, 198.
  [*]Doster, A.M. (1988). "Cyanide, Zinc, pH, and Contact Time Effects on Nitrifying Bacteria." Unpublished M.S. Thesis, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
  [*]Gee, C.S., Pfeffer, J.T. and Sudan, MT. (1990). "Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter Interactions in Biological Nitrification." ASCE Journal of Environmental Engineering, 116, 4.
  [*]Gee, C.S., Sudan, M.T. and Pfeffer, J.T. (1990). "Modeling of Nitrification Under Substrate-Inhibiting Conditions." ASC Journal of Environ. Engineering , 116, 4.
  [*]Hyman, M.R. (1991). Personal communication with J.E. Alleman, Oregon State University, Corvalis, OR.
  [*]Hyman, M.R., Murton, I.B. and Arp, D.J. (1988). "Interaction of Ammonia Monooxygenase from Nitrosomonas europaea with Alkanes, Alkenes, and Alkynes." Applied Environmental Microbiology, 3187.
  [*]Johnson, R.O. (1991). Unpublished data, Purdue University School of Civil Engineering, West Lafayette, IN.
  [*]Sharma, B. and Ahlert, R.C. (1977). "Nitrification and Nitrogen Removal," Water Research 11, 897.
  [*]Pantea-Kiser, L.M. (1987). "The Effects of Mixtures of Inhibitory Compounds on Biological Nitrification." Unpublished M.S. Thesis, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
  [*]Rasche, M.E., Hyman, M.R., and Arp, D.J. (1990). "Biodegradation of Halogenated Hydrocarbon Fumigants by Nitrifying Bacteria." Applied Environmental Microbiology, 2568.
  [*]Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, (1975). APHA, AWWA, WPCF, Washington, D.C.
  [*]Suzuki, I, Kwok, S.C., and Dular, U. (1974). "Ammonia or Ammonium Ion as Substrate for Oxidation by Nitrosomonas europaea cells and extracts." Journal of Bacteriology, 120, 556.
  [*]Wood, P.M. (1986). "Nitrification as a Bacterial Energy Source,"Nitrification, Editor: J.I. Prosser, Washington, D.C.

 

[Star_Rider]

Also my suspicion. Since both Nitrobacter and Nitrospira can do the job (although once things mature one or the other will dominate depending on the conditions) it doesn't actually matter which you add as long as the things are actually alive .

The other thing this whole business of exponential bacterial growth predicts is that if you're doing a fishless cycle, adding a good source of existing bacteria will make a massive difference, and not doing so is probably behind the 40 or 50 day cycles we read about on here from time to time. I suspect that "squeezings" are pretty worthless (although better than nothing) compared with actual media, carefully transported. I also suspect it's worth doing a second innoculation once nitrite starts to rise because if this has taken more than a few days most of the nitrobacter/nitrospira are going to have gone into a dormant phase and will take a while to wake up; adding bacteria at this point will mean that one will not have to wait for them to be activated.

all these years I have been doing 'squeezins' exclusively and no issues.. I do do a second innoculation tho when nitrites start to rise . I noticed that the bacteria were slow to respond.. add more squeezins and the nitrite is gone within 12-24 hrs.

 

[colinsk]

What I found interesting in that paper is that the bacteria are motile. One of the things I notice here on the Newbee forum is that when people post about a white haze it is also when they start to get nitrites. I wonder if that is the motile form of Nitrococcus mobilis?

 

[jpappy789]

all these years I have been doing 'squeezins' exclusively and no issues.. I do do a second innoculation tho when nitrites start to rise . I noticed that the bacteria were slow to respond.. add more squeezins and the nitrite is gone within 12-24 hrs.

Same here, although I've never started out with a large bioload anyways.

 

[THE V]

It's most likely not caused by the Nitrococcus bacteria. They grow very slowly. Remember that there are more than just one species of bacteria in a tank. You also need to establish lots of bacteria that break down carbon based organic waste. Since breaking up these molecules releases more energy than converting NH3 to NO2- they grow much faster.

Filter squeezing generally works just fine. In one squeezing of established media you are adding billions of bacteria to the tank of many different species. It also stops a new tank from getting "blooms" which are imbalances in predator/prey relationships.