The Use of Probiotics in Aquaculture

[duanes]

My way of adding the dry powder was to put a spoonful, in a filter sock in a sump (I also don't see why a filter cup wouldn't be exactly the same) so the powder itself would be localized and not cloud the tank. The bacteria are so small, they would not be confined by a sock. a cup, or any mechanical filter media.

 

[Uglyknob]

I tried the RIDX right in the filter cup yesterday. Seems to have worked well. I could swear there is already less pleco turd in there. It all accumulates in one spot and it seems to have diminished in size pretty quickly. Could be all in my head though. No fish were affected at all, other than seeming to get excited when I added it - like they were being fed. The little flakes clogged up my filter floss pretty good though. Think I might add it with a bag next time just to eliminate that part.

 

[islandguy11]

Well I went to 2 LFS today and they were both out of stock of PSBios and waiting for more to come from BKK. So instead I decided to pick up some stuff called "Thunder Bac". I've seen it on the shelves of every LFS here for years and years (so I reckon it's pretty popular with locals), but never used it. It's only about $3 for what looks like to be about a 2-3 month supply for my size tanks (total about 1,100 gallons).

It has B. subtilis, which I've seen mentioned on this thread many times and also on quite a few aqua products. It also has B. thuringiensis, which I had never seen before. After returning home and doing some research I was at first rather dismayed to see that B. thuringiensis is actually a pathogenic bacterium used in pesticides!

However more research showed that a) it's generally not considered to be harmful for fish (or humans); and b) it's quite an interesting bacteria because from what I understand it can be easily adapted/engineered to target specific types of organisms (e.g. certain insects), or in the case of aquaculture, mostly to target Centrocestus formosanus. So used in this regard B. thuringiensis is considered a natural alternative to using chemical based antibiotics and the negatives associated with such meds.

Anthelmintic Effect of Bacillus thuringiensis Strains against the Gill Fish Trematode Centrocestus formosanus

Anthelmintic Effect of Bacillus thuringiensis Strains against the Gill Fish Trematode Centrocestus formosanus

Parasitic agents, such as helminths, are the most important biotic factors affecting aquaculture, and the fluke Centrocestus formosanus is considered to be highly pathogenic in various fish species. There have been efforts to control this parasite with ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

If like me you haven't heard of C. formosanus, it is quite a significant if not growing problem with fish from SEA (mostly affecting gills and maybe also naval cavities), and it can be very deadly. As a good portion of the world's fish come from SEA, this is something for many to be concerned about (and RD. has alluded to the dangers of parasites from SEA fish in a number of threads on MFK over the years, incl. linked study in OP).

Here's another study:
Prevalence of Centrocestus formosanus Metacercariae in Ornamental Fish from Chiang Mai, Thailand, with Molecular Approach Using ITS2

Prevalence of Centrocestus formosanus Metacercariae in Ornamental Fish from Chiang Mai, Thailand, with Molecular Approach Using ITS2

The prevalence of Centrocestus formosanus metacercariae was investigated in ornamental fish purchased from a pet shop in Chiang Mai, Thailand, including Carassius auratus (goldfish), Cyprinus carpio (Koi), Poecilia latipinna (Sailfin Molly), Danio rerio ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

So hopefully this stuff will help with both reducing organic waste and fighting (at least some) pathogens.

Just wanted to update my experience so far using this Thunder Bac product now for nearly 3 months. First though let me make the point that I'm not the best tester of these products for reducing sludge/organic waste -- 3 of my 4 tanks (all bare bottom) have super little if any sludge (in tanks or filters). Here is a SunSun 704a (from a 325g with solo 17" Arowana) after not opening/cleaning it for 7 months (and before using the Thunder Bac):



That's the only 'sludge' you can see -- the single piece of foam and then 3 trays packed full of bio-media were clean as anything. Here is the internal corner filter in my 11" Kamfa Flowerhorn's 115g, which hasn't been touched in over 5 months (incl. all the foam believe it or not):



But I do have 1 tank that gets some sludge in the corner filter, my 375g (1 X 10" Flagtail + 1 X 8-9" Datnoid). Here is a photo from 1st Sept., with filter not being cleaned in nearly a year (except foam filters -- can't see in the photo -- which were cleaned about once a month):


Here is the same filter on 24th Nov., after 2 months of using Thunder Bac (1 spoon for every 100 liters, as directed on label). As you can see very little if any difference in amount of sludge (if the 2nd pic actually looks worse it's more due to photo lighting difference of the 2 pix, in reality it's pretty much the same as it was 2 months ago. In the red bags is lava rock, which you can see is still coated in sludge.



The main possible reason I can think of is the fact that I only change water in this tank every 12-14 days (and then dosing with Thunder Bac 2 days after WC), so perhaps the tanks wasn't getting enough of the new bacteria for it to fully establish itself in the filter, but I really don't know.

The bio-load of my 115 Kamfa tank with corner filter is roughly the same as the 375 with Flagtail & Datnoid (even though ratio to water volume is not). Both tanks were treated with Thunder Bac, though the 115 more often as it gets weekly changes. So it did receive more doses of Thunder Bac.

However, the 115's corner filter was always super clean, even before I started dosing Thunder Bac, so we can't say it's due to using that.

So what's the real reason my 115's corner filter is so much cleaner than the 375's? It's quite simple: like both of my 325 Arowana tanks, the 115's bare bottom gets cleaned every single day (if not twice) with battery powered vacuum -- the 375 only gets a bit of vacuuming during WC's every 2 weeks.

As such ime it really does come down to what RD. recently posted about: 'Dilution is the Solution'.

All of that said, my results are NO reflection on the products/experiences of others who are using SeptoBac, Rid-X, etc. -- I'm not sure but those products probably have more variety of bacteria compared to this ThunderBac, which only has 2 types. And again, maybe I didn't use enough of it.

In any case I've stopped using the ThunderBac also because I'm not comfortable with regular, ongoing use of a product that essentially has a pesticide in it (even a natural one like B. thuringiensis). So I'm switching to another product and will post about that later.

I would also like to reiterate that my main purpose for trying these products is not organic waste reduction -- with my lower bio-load tanks and mostly solo fish, I'm more interested in the benefits of bacterial competitive exclusion as a preventive measure, which of course is quite difficult to measure the true effects/results of.

 

[RD.]

Dang Barrett, your filters before you clean them, look like mine, after I clean them. lol Thanks for the detailed info, and I agree about the B. thuringiensis, I don't think that I would feel comfortable using that product either.

I'm currently looking at a new product to trial, we'll see how that goes and I will update down the road.

 

[RD.]

The main possible reason I can think of is the fact that I only change water in this tank every 12-14 days (and then dosing with Thunder Bac 2 days after WC), so perhaps the tanks wasn't getting enough of the new bacteria for it to fully establish itself in the filter, but I really don't know.

The type of bacteria typically found in these products, that are primarily sludge reducing products, are heterotrophic bacteria. I suspect that in tanks such as yours, where the organic load is always typically very low, these type of bacteria would have very little chance of ever establishing themselves. You put them in after a water change, they eat whatever they can find, they multiply very quickly and look for more food, they soon are starved out and they die off. I doubt that these bacteria survive more than a day or two in those conditions.

In my tanks I believe that they can survive for at least a week, which is why a routine weekly dosing is important. They might survive 2 weeks, but 1 week between dosing seems more realistic in my tanks. This is why I was asking others for their dosing amounts, and frequency. I'm curious what others are doing.

 

[islandguy11]

The type of bacteria typically found in these products, that are primarily sludge reducing products, are heterotrophic bacteria. I suspect that in tanks such as yours, where the organic load is always typically very low, these type of bacteria would have very little chance of ever establishing themselves. You put them in after a water change, they eat whatever they can find, they multiply very quickly and look for more food, they soon are starved out and they die off. I doubt that these bacteria survive more than a day or two in those conditions.

In my tanks I believe that they can survive for at least a week, which is why a routine weekly dosing is important. They might survive 2 weeks, but 1 week between dosing seems more realistic in my tanks. This is why I was asking others for their dosing amounts, and frequency. I'm curious what others are doing.

Interesting points Neil and makes sense. Then the question arises if those bacteria are dying off could that contribute to ammonia spikes or higher nitrate levels? Perhaps I shouldn't even be messing around with these things lol and just forget about competitive exclusion, KISS.

However I did forgot to make one important point in last post, as there has been one positive effect from using the ThunderBac: before using it I had low levels of diatoms in all 4 of my tanks. Not a lot but enough to see a few splotches here and there. After using the Thunder Bac for a couple of months the diatoms went down to almost nothing in all tanks and have remained so.

So perhaps the extra bacteria were taking away what food source the diatoms had, or maybe the B. thuringiensis was just zapping it, and since then UV sterilizers are keeping them away, I dunno.

Has anyone experienced less diatoms using SeptBac or similar?

 

[RD.]

Then the question arises if those bacteria are dying off could that contribute to ammonia spikes or higher nitrate levels?

If the numbers were high enough, then ammonia levels could rise, just like what takes place in tanks when there is a bacterial bloom. But one should only experience this if they have a very large amount of organics in the tank, and they add a very large amount of bacteria all at once. T thefredpit mentioned this happening in another discussion, when he added an undetermined amount of Rid-X to his tank when there was a significant build up of organics, that had accumulated when I believe he had not been using Rid-X for a while.

The idea is to do this process gradually, not shock the aquarium with a shovel full of probiotic bacteria, added to a tank that is already choked off with sludge. I'm exaggerating of course, but a little goes a long ways, and one shouldn't expect bacteria to replace general maintenance of ones tank, including filter media and regular siphoning of substrate etc.

Used on a regular basis, in a limited controlled amount, these heterotrophic bacteria will convert excess organics to carbon dioxide, ash, mineral, gas, and water, which are then removed further via aeration, plants, and regular water changes.

Another real risk to overdosing with massive amounts, especially in a sludge filled tank, is 02 depletion.
People need to be sensible when using these products. If not, then operator error could prove to be fatal in extreme situations.

So perhaps the extra bacteria were taking away what food source the diatoms had

That would be my guess.

 

[RD.]

As previously mentioned I have began testing another product, called Bio-Clean. So far I am impressed with the company, and their overall transparency. While they don't list the exact bacteria, they do ensure that it is non-pathogenic, and they also list the specific enzymes used; amylase, cellulase, lipase and protease. Most companies that produce these septic type bacteria products often don’t list anything.

According to their literature......

Bio-Clean drain and septic cleaner has been put to the test repeatedly against similar products in the marketplace by independent, third-party laboratories. Tests are done for enzyme activity, plate count, and, as shown in the chart below, the percentage of organic material digested in 12 hours. The substrate (organic testing material) used consists of 8% fat, 30% protein, 28% carbohydrates, and 4.8% cellulose. One gram of each of the products was placed in 100 ml of water along with one gram of substrate and kept at 28º C.

All tests were performed by a completely independent laboratory and all results are on file at the factory.




With many new brands coming into the market every year, it is important to note that there is very little difference in the core bacterial components used - they are only available from a small number of suppliers. Even large brand names obtain this material from among these suppliers, so the real differences come from concentration and cosmetic properties such as coloring and fragrance. Bio-Clean's formulation, based on years of experience and specialized expertise, has consistently shown superior results in test after test.
Bio-Clean is Most Cost-Effective
Bio-Clean Stays Strong on the Shelf
Bio-Clean has a shelf life of five years or more when kept dry.
Bio-Clean contains more bacteria and more enzymes than any product anywhere in the world.

..........................................


While the testing is still only in the initial phase, impossible for me to weigh in with regards to how it is going to compare to others that I have used, such as SeptoBac, but I found it interesting that SeptoBac, along with Rid-X, was used in their lab trials. One thing that I noticed straight away was that the medium in Bio-Clean dissipated very quickly in the tank. While my tanks initially got a bit cloudy, it just seemed like a cleaner product, less filler, compared to SeptoBac. IME there has been no need to strain off the solids, I simply mix 1 teaspoon in 1 liter of water, which I then pour into my two tanks. So I am using 1 teaspoon, for 250 gallons of aquarium water, each week. The cloudiness clears off in a few hours, no big deal. All that is left behind is a light dusting of material. With SeptoBac I always strained off most of the solids as I was pouring the mix in. We'll see how that plays out over the months ahead, as I began using this product just days after doing a major cleaning of all of my filter media in both tanks. No effect on pH, or ammonia levels, which are being monitored using Seachem pH Alert, and Seachem Ammonia Alert sensors.

Stay tuned!

 

[RD.]

I like the part that the Director of Research & Development, Robert Kinzie, said about his dad, who developed the product back in the 1970's. Not a trait that one often sees in todays business world. That, and at 5:28 when Bubba says that he's eaten it. lol In the vid they state the shelf life as being 10 yrs, while on one of the American websites they state 5 yrs. Either way, if stored in a cool, dark environment, it should be good for several years - which is a good thing, as my 2lb trial jar, at 1 teaspoon a week, should last me close to 6 years! A shout out to Colin @ Bio-Pro Distributions for getting this project off to a good start.

 

[RD.]

After reviewing some of the comments made over the years regarding dosage rates & frequencies, I really wish that I would have put out a large WARNING in this thread, regarding same.

Warning - STOP Now & Read Below Before Proceeding!


If I could make that into a blinking GIF, I would.


As stated above - a little of these products goes a long ways!


Please Read the Following, Before Adding PROBIOTIC Bacteria OF ANY KIND To Your Tank!

The idea is to start this process gradually, not shock the aquarium with a shovel full of probiotic bacteria, added to a tank that is already choked off with sludge. I'm exaggerating of course, but a little goes a long ways, and one shouldn't expect bacteria to replace general maintenance of ones tank, including filter media and regular siphoning of substrate etc.

Used on a regular basis, in a limited controlled amount, these heterotrophic bacteria will convert excess organics to carbon dioxide, ash, mineral, gas, and water, which are then removed further via aeration, plants, and regular water changes. It can help reduce excessive organic build up, especially in low flow areas where a siphon cannot reach, as well as breaking down organic sludge that builds up on filter media in between regular maintenance.

Don't KILL Your Fish!

Another real risk to overdosing with massive amounts, especially in a sludge filled tank, is 02 depletion.
People need to be sensible when using these products. If not, then operator error could prove to be fatal in extreme situations. Starting off with a massive dose can cause ammonia spikes from a sudden increase in a massive amount of organics being consumed by these bacteria. it can also cause a sudden depletion in oxygen levels from this same process - bacteria need oxygen, as do your fish, so go easy and pay attention to the following - BEFORE you start adding these products to your tanks.


Some info from the Experts in this Area

From the pages of Alken Murray, which I have linked to previously in this discussion, but may have been missed by some. This is from one of the soluble formulas (so pretty much zero bran, wheat, etc substrate) when added to ones tank, much like what I have described with the Bio-Clean formula that I am currently trialling. This formula was also designed for aquariums, along with ponds, and they break the dosage down to per 100 gallons. https://www.alken-murray.com/1002pib.htm

ALKEN CLEAR-FLO® 1002 is a soluble, super-concentrated, dry blend of eleven natural, non-pathogenic, spore-forming, gram-positive Bacillus specifically selected for use in aquariums and garden ponds, to rapidly degrade a wide assortment of proteins, starches, fats, carbohydrates, fibers and excreta that contribute to murky water, reduced oxygen and buildup of algae and sediments.

This is much like the septic bacteria formulas that have been mentioned in this thread, some are simply more powerful than others, due to their bacteria & enzyme content.

THIS IS IMPORTANT!

For aquariums and garden ponds from 100 to 1,000 gallons (378 - 3,780 liters): For each 100 gallons (378 liters), the initial dose is 0.5 grams, followed by 0.2 grams once a week for 3 doses, then 0.2 grams twice a month.

This is Important Too!

Alken Clear-Flo Aquatic Dosages

Dosage Charts for Aquatic Application of Alken Clear-Flo 1000 line products

www.alken-murray.com

• To equate volume with weight in bran-based dry products (NOT exact due to variability of product density)

1 teaspoon of volume = 0.08 ounces (2.5 grams) of weight
1 tablespoon of volume = 0.26 ounce (7.5 grams) of weight.
2 oz. volume scoop holds 1 ounce (28 grams) weight
4 oz. volume scoop holds 55 grams (1/8 lb.) weight
8 oz. volume scoop holds 110 grams (1/4 lb) weight
1 quart of volume will equal 1 lb. (450 grams) weight


So when people are referring to using 3-4 cups of product, in their 300 gallon tank - a word to the wise, use the chart & dosage rates that the experts have suggested for their products. These products should be measured in grams, or fractions of teaspoons, NOT cups! They even have guidelines for liquid formulations, including for alternative applications, such as septic systems.

If your tank is a sludge filled crap fest, start small, and work your way up. DO NOT OVERDOSE to cut corners!
Then, once the bacteria are established, do as Alken-Murray recommend, and cut back to a maintenance dosage.