Yo-han
Member
I think you miss one thing. Healthy plants is not only high O2. It's also low organics. When O2 is high but plants unhealthy, there will still be loads of organics -> a lot of heterotrophic bacteria -> B12 & ammonia formation -> BBA.
-
You are viewing the forum as a Guest, please login (you can use your Facebook, Twitter, Google or Microsoft account to login) or register using this link: Log in or Sign Up
What exactly causes BBA? Part 2 - Bacterial imbalance
- Thread starter AndyMcD
- Start date
hard determinist
Member
- Joined
- 29 Oct 2015
- Messages
- 29
The best way to study BBA growth demands is to study the BBA growth media composition.
Do a Google search for "Audouinella medium". To grow BBA in lab they use vitamin B1 (biotin), B12 (cyanocobalamin), and H (thiamine) + peat moss extract, and other basic nutrients. Also they recommend to use 30-60 µmol PAR (lower light intensity), 20°C + long photoperiod. In planted aquarium a huge number of factors may interfere.
Do a Google search for "Audouinella medium". To grow BBA in lab they use vitamin B1 (biotin), B12 (cyanocobalamin), and H (thiamine) + peat moss extract, and other basic nutrients. Also they recommend to use 30-60 µmol PAR (lower light intensity), 20°C + long photoperiod. In planted aquarium a huge number of factors may interfere.
That's great stuff.
ajm83
Member
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2014
- Messages
- 124
So I wonder then, would running activated carbon help by adsorbing the DOC? (I assume this is what is meant by organics).
Yo-han
Member
IME, it does. And theoratical op should bind vitamins as well. If not, something live purigen should.
AndyMcD
Member
RisingSun, as Yo-Han says, the heterotrophic and autotrophic bacteria are competing for surface area and oxygen. If organics are high and O2 increases, the heterotrophic bacteria would respond quicker and win. The autotrophic bacteria may only benefit from increased O2 if organics are very low.
Also, I think the effect of photorespiration may be important here. Instead of absorbing CO2 and photosynthesising, some of the reactions lead to the plant absorbing O2 and photorespiring instead.
Photorespiration increases if O2 levels increase or CO2 levels reduce.
The outputs of photorespiration include CO2 and NH3, which is wasteful for the plant in terms of loss of carbon and nitrogen. The plant will try to re-assimilate these products, but the reactions are wasteful of energy.
All this means that too much O2 or too little CO2 (particularly in bright light) makes photorespiration harmful to the plant.
Also, if the plant's nitrogen needs are being met by its own internal reactions, it may absorb less ammonia from the water column.
This means that the addition of O2 may mean that the plant may absorb less NH3, an increase which the relatively static population of autotrophic bacteria cannot respond to, meaning an increase in ammonia available to the algae.
AndyMcD
Member
AJM83, ADA recommend using activated carbon for the first 6-8 weeks after setting up a new tank (while ADA Aquasoil is releasing ammonia).
Activated carbon may remove organics from the water column, but it is important to remove to prevent it from becoming a food source for the heterotrophic bacteria.
AndyMcD
Member
Hard determinist, this is really helpful information. Thank you.
Previously in this thread, we've discussed the following paper, which includes this diagram, which shows how vitamins B12 and B1 play a role in the growth and re-production of algae.
"Influence of vitamin B auxotrophy on nitrogen metabolism in eukaryotic phytoplankton" by Bertrand and Allen (
http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fmicb.2012.00375/full):
This paper also ties in with the lower light intensity / longer photoperiod for achieving greater growth in algae:
http://www.researchgate.net/publica...freshwater_red_algae_in_culture._Phycolog_Res
In this thread, the proposal is that the huge number of factors that can interfere can be better explained if you consider the impact on the heterotrophic and autotrophic bacteria and in particular the impact on the concentration of Vitamin B12 and ammonia (ammonium).
rebel
Member
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2015
- Messages
- 2,269
Looks like the more we know, the more we are confused?? 
Has anyone been sciency enough to run a few tests under lab conditions? I am intensely interested if anyone can replicate consistent BBA growth with a specific formula ie X light, Y ferts etc. Once you grow it, then you can practice killing it.
Has anyone been sciency enough to run a few tests under lab conditions? I am intensely interested if anyone can replicate consistent BBA growth with a specific formula ie X light, Y ferts etc. Once you grow it, then you can practice killing it.
Oh ok, that's reasonable. Thanks
fablau
Member
Has anyone tried to combat BBA with activated carbon or Purigen? Any results?
hard determinist
Member
- Joined
- 29 Oct 2015
- Messages
- 29
To grow BBA in lab conditions is easy as in the lab you use sterile conditions, and precise growth media composition with all the needed nutrients. You just buy the algae sample, the growth media (Audouinella medium), put the algae into the nutritious medium and put it under light (in a room with proper temperature). That's all. This way you can grow the algae for ages. The problem is to grow the algae in our tanks where the conditions are not sterile, and where there are so many other factors comming into play. However, it may be of interest for us to study how different kinds of bacteria affect the BBA growth.
rebel
Member
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2015
- Messages
- 2,269
Thanks for this answer. Is it then possible to limit B12 etc in those conditions to see whether there is a difference in growth? ie Once you have a few culture plates, then treat them with predefined conditions ie low light, high B12 etc and see?
[disclaimer I don't know science; just thinking out loud]
I run purigen and API Bio-Chem in my cannister. 2 weeks ago, I got a BBA outbreak without changing anything with the tank and I realized it had been 5 months since I changed my chemical media. Manufacture recommendation is 3-6 months. I'm going to change out the chem media every 4 months this time, I'll let you know if I get another BBA outbreak.
AndyMcD
Member
RisingSun, I've just done a Google search on Purigen and Zeolite.
Someone on the UKAPS forum pointed out that if the Purigen has a large store of ammonia it is likely to have a large population of nitrifying bacteria.
I'm sure you'll have done this, but to avoid throwing out a large proportion of your nitrifying bacteria, it may make sense to gradually change your media.
Someone on the UKAPS forum pointed out that if the Purigen has a large store of ammonia it is likely to have a large population of nitrifying bacteria.
I'm sure you'll have done this, but to avoid throwing out a large proportion of your nitrifying bacteria, it may make sense to gradually change your media.
AndyMcD
Member
Fablau, have you read the 'Good Algae Article' at the top of the Algae section?
I found it really interesting what was said about keeping ammonia and organics low to battle algae.
Sorry, I haven't tested this yet (but it's interesting that we're considering this as alternative ways of battling BBA).
AndyMcD
Member
Rebel, hard determinist's link to Audouinella Medium shows that the best way to grow algae in a lab is to grow it on a substrate which includes vitamin B12. This must have been found through properly controlled experiments.
If heterotrophic bacteria produce B12, you'd have to make sure everything was sterile before accurately testing for low levels of B12. The environment would have to be clean, correct temperature, correctly lit etc. How would you be 100% you could prevent bacteria getting into the system in a home? Better done in a lab.
If this has been carried out previously in a lab and been shown to be true (published scientific paper), can we accept this?
In which case, hard determinist's post gives us the ideal conditions (and therefore what to avoid) to grow algae.
hard determinist
Member
- Joined
- 29 Oct 2015
- Messages
- 29
Read what Gerloff says in his paper on Nutritional Ecology of Nuisance Aquatic Plants (page 5):
"The nutritional requirements of most autotrophic plants, including fresh-water algae and macrophytes, are relatively simple. In the absence of toxic conditions, green plants make normal growth upon exposure to suitable temperature, adequate light, water, and inorganic nutrients. External supplies of vitamins, amino acids, and an organic energy source need not be provided."
The last two sentences are meant for the plants only (not algae), as we already know that some algae need vitamines or other organics to grow and multiply well. Still, it is clear that to grow plants and algae is a relatively simple task. There are some people (hobbyists) who say that they are able to grow every aquatic plant in their tanks, and flaunt it. But in fact, it's easy if you give them what they need, and at the same time avoid the toxic (or otherwise unfavourable) conditions. We all have suitable temperature in our tanks, adequate light (in most cases), some water in there, and quite good load of (in)organic nutrients. So why our plants don't grow well, or why algae grow too much? I think that's mainly because we don't understand how different parts in our tank work, and what's their share in the whole. So if we have adequate light, suitable temperature, water, and a good load of nutrients in our tank, but our plants don't grow too well, then we must have some other factors working against all this. The same applies for algae: If we have all they need in our tank, and still they don't grow, then we must have some other factors working against them (e.g. plants shading, too high oxygen levels, radicals, shrimps or other algae eaters, frequent water changes, glass cleaning, substrate vacuuming, filters with special media, non-optimal pH ... etc.). If you remove all these "anti-factors", you get what is inevitable = good growth (whether of plants or algae). Growing plants (or algae) in the lab is a really easy task, because the scientists use perfectly controlled environment without the "toxic/unfavourable" part (or they use the toxic part to study how it negatively affects the growth, but that's another story). But this easy task can become quite complicated in the field of our tanks, where there are dozens of "uncontrolled (anti)factors" comming into play. And because you don't know all these factors and their share in the whole, you are shifting to the realm of speculation. So I don't believe that without proper testing/experimenting we can get to any valid results.
AndyMcD
Member
I feel a rant coming on! Hard determinist, this is most definitely not aimed in your direction! I think the posts you've made have been really interesting. I respect your opinion. However, gonna have to get this off my chest ...
In the field of Physics there are experimental physicists and theoretical physicists. The experimental physicists make observations which the theoretical physicists try to explain and create new theories of their own, which the experimental physicists then test ... And so science moves forward.
I read the What Exactly Causes BBA? thread with interest. There are a large number of aquarists who through their own observations have identified potential causes and controls. However, there was also a large amount of frustration regarding how these potential causes were connected and could lead to a BBA outbreak (e.g. Why should increasing CO2 prevent BBA). The conclusion seemed to be that only through experiments to determine the significance or not of each proposed cause could you determine why.
Ultimately, this is true. Only through experiment will you ultimately prove beyond doubt the cause(s).
However, we need to be realistic about the money and time we have available to carry out such a large scale experiment with so many possible variables. Also, few of us have a lab in our homes to be able to meaningfully carry out such experiments. Once you had drawn your conclusions, you'd then be faced with relating this to the real life ecosystems in our aquariums (... But I don't have these plants / soil / fish etc).
In my opinion, a better approach is the one that the majority of people in this hobby seemed to be taking of varying something within this complex system and observing the effect it has. In this way, you determine whether varying something has an effect and if so how does this fit with other observations.
At the start of my career, I worked in R&D for a few years. Before beginning an experiment we were taught to carry out a review of the current scientific thinking so as to focus attention where it was most needed.
Just because science has been proved in a lab rather than an aquarium, doesn't make it less relevant. We accept photosynthesis happens even though it wasn't found in an aquarium first. Therefore, I think it is valid (and much cheaper) to look at published scientific papers to find out what scientists (with proper labs) have found.
After the What Exactly Causes BBA? thread, I thought I'd read a little deeper into the subject.
This isn't an area of science I have studied, but if you begin to ask:
- what organisms benefit (and suffer) from the changes in the environment that are reported to happen before an outbreak
- how these organisms doing well may benefit the BBA
I think it is possible to construct a fairly credible argument that bacteria are involved, which can be supported by scientific data (carried out by scientists in labs with white coats and everything).
Is this shifting to the realm of speculation? Yes. Does this proposed theory really hold water? I don't know. However, if this thread has helped to move this issue forward and focus the experimental aquarists attention where it may help defeat BBA, I'd be happy.
