Probiotics in fish feed and Oscars are true omnivores

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo

kmuda

Jack Dempsey
MFK Member
Oct 16, 2006
93
3
38
Fort Smith Arkanasas
Nope, nothing on Ethoxyquin or such. But a couple of peer reviewed articles I've come across that I found interesting that others interested in fish food ingredients may find valuable.

The use of probiotics in aquatic organisms: A review
http://www.academicjournals.org/AJMR/PDF/Pdf2012/21June/Aguirre-Guzman et al.pdf

Most of the information included in the above document I was already familiar with. One aspect I was not is the statement that probiotics can "improve energy expenditure derived from sources such as carbohydrates and increase the incorporation of protein for growth"......

Since my focus is primarily on Oscars, I found the below article helpful. It indicates what we already know, that Oscars are true omnivores capable of equally digesting appropriate plant and animal material, but it also briefly discusses soybean, referencing a digestibility similar to fish meal. Not that I am in any way suggesting Fish Meal be replaced by Soybean meal. It may, however, place a preference for soybean products over wheat products as an ingredient in fish foods.

Protein digestibility of the different ingredients was similar, showing that apparent digestibility of both animal and plant ingredients by juvenile oscars was efficient. Energy digestibility coefficients of fish meal and soybean meal were higher than those of wheat meal and corn. Carbohydrate-rich ingredients (wheat meal and corn) had the worst energy digestibility coefficients and are therefore not used efficiently by juvenile oscars.

Effects of different sampling intervals on apparent protein and energy digestibility of common feed ingredients by juvenile oscar fish
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S1807-86722012000200006&script=sci_arttext

And here is a question for everyone. Why do we never find "Crawfish" as an ingredient in tropical fish foods? Crawfish make up a significant percentage of the diet for fish such as Oscars. You would think there would be a crawfish based food.
 
Most of the general info in that article is species dependent.


While numerous publications & studies about the use of probiotics and/or prebiotics in aquaculture have emerged during the last decade, we still know very little about their use regarding the vast amount of ornamental species of fish found in tthis hobby.


Here's what we do know.

There are numerous strains of probiotic bacteria, each targeting different types of aquatic pathogens. In order for any of these probiotics to be fully effective, they must be in a live form, or able to be reactivated once in the GI tract of the host. The vast majority cannot survive the heat, moisture, and pressure during the processing stage of commercial food manufacture. Bacillus species such as B. subtilis and B. licheniformis are commonly used as probiotics in aquaculture, but studies have shown that if added before the extrusion, expansion, or drying process, it will result in the loss of 99% of the Bacillus spores. In order for probiotics to have any type of positive effect on the fish, they must survive in very large quantity.

One workaround is for manufacturers to add these live microorganisms after the food is processed, in a dry powder form. Previous studies have indicated that only 60% of probiotic bacteria remain viable when applied in this manner, and viability is reduced by another 25% within 12 months of the date of manufacture. (even more so if stored under less than ideal conditions)

To make matters worse, tests that have been performed in the past on numerous pet & human food products by researchers at the Ontario Veterinary College (as well as other accredited institutions) that were sold as containing "probiotics" had results that were far from being impressive. Many of these organisms were improperly identified on the label, a large percentage of products did not contain the specified organisms, contained other species of organisms, did not contain the stated numbers of organisms, or if numbers were stated they did not guarantee that the stated number would be present at the time of expiry.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC340078/

"Because probiotics are considered food supplements, not drugs, there are no regulations regarding their use as supplements or food additives. Various studies have reported that quality control among probiotic supplements intended for human or animal use is poor, with a significant percentage of products either not containing the organisms stated on the label, not containing the numbers of organisms stated on the label, or containing additional species. "

"Overall, commercial pet foods that claim to contain probiotics appear to contain very low numbers of viable organisms, and often do not contain the species listed on the label. Whether this relates to improper addition of organisms during processing, failure to survive processing, or poor viability during storage is unclear. Regardless of the contents of any diets containing lactic acid bacteria or bacilli, it is debatable as to whether they should be considered to contain probiotics without demonstration of species-specific efficacy."

More info from the OVC can be found in the following link
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC340366/


The link below offers more information on this subject with regards to the use of probiotics in aquaculture:

http://mmbr.asm.org/cgi/content/full/64/4/655

Most of the literature references on the use of probiotics report on probiotics consisting of single bacterial strains (Table 1). It stands to reason that probiotics based on a single strain are less effective than mixed-culture probiotics when microbial control is desired. The approach should be systemic, i.e., based on a mixture of versatile strains capable of acting and interacting under a variety of conditions and able to maintain themselves in a dynamic way. It has been argued above that in aquaculture the microbial habitat undergoes continuous alterations, allowing constant changes in the structural composition and the functions of the microbial community. It is unlikely that a single bacterial species will be able to remain dominant in a continuously changing environment. The probability that a beneficial bacterium will dominate the associated microbiota is higher when several bacteria are administered then when only one probiotic strain is involved.

Probiotics are usually defined as live microbial feed supplements which beneficially affect the host animal by improving its intestinal microbial balance (Fuller, 1989). Based on this definition, probiotics may include microbial adjuncts that prevent pathogens from proliferating in the intestinal tract (Gatesoupe, 1994). Most probiotics proposed as biological control agents in aquaculture belong to the lactic acid bacteria(LAB). But LAB has some limitations due to small antibacterial spectrum. These activities normally inhibit only closely related species of gram positive microorganisms (Suma et al., 1998). However, almost all the pathogens involved in aquaculture are gram-negative bacteria. Bacillus subtilis, a gram-positive, aerobic, endospore-forming bacterium, would fall under this category, yet this is exactly what one of the major fish food manufacturers has listed in their ingredients as their probiotic. Hmmmmm.

These live microorganisms must then be able to survive transit through the acidic environment of the stomach and resist bile digestion. Organisms that survive the acid and bile must possess a number of other properties, including the ability to adhere to intestinal epithelial cells, colonize the intestinal tract, produce an antimicrobial factor, and inhibit enteric pathogens. In other words, unless the probiotic supplementation meets ALL of the requirements above, it's effect on the health of your fish will be minimal, if anything at all. In fact, depending on the microorganism used, if supplemented on a constant long term basis it could even prove to have a negative effect on the health of your fish.

At this point nobody knows what if any long term effects some of these microorganisms may or may not have on the long term health of any species of fish, as no long term studies have yet to be performed. (and most certainly not on any tropical fish species) Commercial fisheries tend to focus on short term feed trials, and short term results, as fish that are raised for human consumption typically aren't being kept long term.

The part that I find most alarming about products used in aquaculture is that probiotics and/or prebiotics may be marketed without any demonstration of efficacy or safety. None. Personally I don't find that very comforting.


Currently the USA based Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) will not even allow any type of health or disease claims on a pet food label that lists probiotics. (dog, cat, fish, etc)

Some fish food manufacturers have made claims about their use of probiotics for the reduction of solid waste in the aquarium.

This is certainly not a new concept in aquaculture, these same type of products have been manufactured for the use in septic systems for decades, and there are a number of aquatic related companies that have been marketing these same types of enzymes & micro organisms for just as long. Below is the description given for one of these products that is marketed for reptile use. (company & product name has been removed/replaced with XYZ.

Eliminates organic waste build-up in gravel, filters and on submersed surfaces Reduces odors Solubilizes organic waste. XYZ helps eliminate organic waste in reptile habitat water parts. (e.g. turtle aquariums, snake bowls or amphibian water parts). It efficiently reduces solid waste and leftovers in the water from overfeeding. Use XYZ to complement filters for beneficial bacteria build-up and to reduce odors associated with decaying waste. Solubilized waste becomes a food source for beneficial bacteria introduced by adding XYZ. XYZ includes 4 strains of micro-organisms, selected for their ability to biodegrade proteins, fats, carbohydrates and certain hydrocarbons. Only contains Class 1 micro organisms, which are classified non-pathogenic. Bacterial Community Includes: Bacillus amyloliquefaciens, Bacillus subtilis (2 strains) and Bacillus licheniformis.


While these products may very well solubilize organic waste, all that is required to remove organic waste, is a water change!

Yes, good old fashioned water changes, filter maintenance, and substrate cleaning is all that's required, what a novel idea! Through regular water changes, filter maintenance, and substrate cleaning one can keep their tank in perfect balance with the bio load. Not only does regular maintenance remove solid organic waste, this will also remove dissolved organic compounds (DOC's), and just as importantly, it will replenish minerals & trace elements in the water that become depleted over time.

These simple basic maintenance steps are what is involved in helping to promote a healthy aquarium, and no fancy shmancy bacteria in a bottle (or pellet food) product is going to change that. Perhaps the fish food manufacturers that feel their products require added bacteria to break down all of the solid waste produced from eating their food, should spend more time & resources utilizing higher quality raw ingredients, that have higher rates of digestibility, and less starch. Hmmmmmm.



In commercial applications, such as large intensive fish farm settings, the study & use of probiotics is to control pathogenic bacteria by improving water quality by balancing the bacterial population in the water, and reducing the pathogenic bacterial load. Unfortunately these bacteria are known to evolve very quickly, with resistant strains in some areas, it has been suggested that some of these even being resistant to probiotics.

In "farmed" fish there may be a more limited range of parasites found compared to what is present in the wild, but they are often present in far greater numbers. Hosts are readily available in farm conditions where fish are raised in large numbers, which allows parasitic infestations to grow with no natural check or balance in place. In an aquarium setting, this is typically not an issue.



IMO if you want to stimulate the immune response of your fish, and keep it healthy long term.


1. Feed a high quality, highly digestible premium diet to your fish where all of the nutrient levels exceed the minimum requirements for the species, including all of the various vitamins & minerals. While ingredients such as Spirulina, Garlic, Seaweed, Micro-Algae, are not considered true probiotics, as they are not "live" organisms, they do in fact contain bioactive compounds, that have been proven to have a probiotic effect on fish. Some of these compounds have been shown to have biological effects in fish such as growth promotion, immunostimulation, anti-stress, anti-bacterial, anti-fungal, anti-virals, and appetite stimulators.

2. Keep your water & filters in proper condition (limiting the number of pathogens) If your stocking density is high, then be prepared to perform the required maintenance to keep conditions stable, and water quality high.

3. Keep the overall environment for your fish as stress free as possible.



While I applaud the commercial aquaculture circles for seeking alternative routes to treating fish pathogens via more natural methods, the reality is they are now only doing so due to their own large scale & long term abuse of medications such as antibiotics. Anyone that has read my write up on treating internal protozoans (spironucleus sp) via an oral 3% magnesium sulphate solution knows that I am all about using alternative treatment methods whenever humanly possible, but in the case of probiotics I don't believe that hobbyists need to supplement live microorganisms in order to keep healthy disease free livestock. Simple husbandry practices such as listed above have served most of us very well over the years, and I expect will continue to do so for many years to come.

Cheers!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rakeboy
Since my focus is primarily on Oscars, I found the below article helpful. It indicates what we already know, that Oscars are true omnivores capable of equally digesting appropriate plant and animal material, but it also briefly discusses soybean, referencing a digestibility similar to fish meal. Not that I am in any way suggesting Fish Meal be replaced by Soybean meal. It may, however, place a preference for soybean products over wheat products as an ingredient in fish foods.

I believe that the only thing confirmed in that oscar study was something most of us already knew, that being;

This indicates that juvenile oscars have efficient protein uptake from both animal and plant sources.

Energy digestibility, in turn, was different among the evaluated ingredients (p < 0.05). The energy digestibility coefficients of fish meal and soybean meal were higher (p < 0.05) than those of corn and wheat meal, which are carbohydrate-rich ingredients. Carnivorous fish use protein and fat efficiently, but not carbohydrates because they lack the enzymes needed to digest this material (HIDALGO et al., 1999). Despite evidence that intestinal bacteria of oscars can digest proteins, carbohydrates and fats (RAMIREZ; DIXON, 2003), the present study indicates that nutrient use by juvenile oscars is similar to that of carnivorous fish. Other cichlids such as the Nile tilapia also do not use dietary carbohydrates efficiently (SHIAU, 2002).

A study on the digestive enzymes of 11 teleost fish showed that these enzymes are not related to type of diet or fish feeding behavior (CHAKRABARTI et al., 1995). According to the authors, fish can occupy more than one ecological niche because most of the species are opportunistic. Moreover, the food source varies according to its availability in the environment. The feeding habits of oscars range from omnivorous to carnivorous and their ecological niche is still a matter of discussion (SILVA, 2005). Considering that fish are opportunistic and that in the Amazon basin (the natural habitat of oscars) food availability varies greatly throughout the year, evaluation of stomach contents can provide misleading results on its feeding behavior. Therefore, this can be better assessed by investigating the digestive strategy for nutrient utilization (CHAKRABARTI et al., 1995).

In a nutshell, juvenile oscars do not use carbohydrates efficiently. Wheat meal itself is seldom if ever used in tropical fish feed, and the wheat that is used (wheat flour) isn't used to supply energy, its primary role is that of a binding agent. Also, a few feed trials that involve digestibility of a raw material such as soybeans, doesn't say anything about the long term safety of that ingredient when feeding fin fish.

Commercial aquaculture is constantly looking for less costly alternatives to fish meal to supply both protein (growth) & fat (energy), but so far it hasn't happened, at least not something that can be utilized by the vast majority of tropical species.

As far as crawfish, I doubt that they are even AAFCO approved as a pet food ingredient, shrimp meal is a close alternative where manufacturers can purchase the industry waste (heads & shells) at a small cost compared to whole crawfish, or for that matter whole krill.
 
RD, I follow a very simple philosophy of fish keeping. Keep organics as low as humanly possible. Accomplish this and your chances of long term success are very high. Of course, nothing replaces water change and good husbandry. But then again, short of a continuous water change system, nothing is going to achieve anything near the same level of organics (or nitrates) to be found in the habitats our fish have evolved to live in.

I believe the highest level of nitrates every recorded in the Amazon river was 1.24ppm. In other Amazonian rivers, such as the Orinoco River, the levels run at 80ppb (that's parts per billion). And while there may not be a direct correlation between nitrates and organics, the two generally go together (excessive nitrate and excessive organics). As a result, these are indications that the amount of organics normally found in our tanks is drastically higher than what evolution has designed our fish to deal with. And with higher levels of organics will be found higher concentrations of heterotrophic bacteria.... and higher concentrations of heterotrophic bacteria will result in higher concentrations of pathogenic or potentially pathogenic bacteria.

The problems faced by aquaculture and hobbyist are not far removed from each other. They are the same. Trying to house fish in an enclosed environment, potentially overcrowded, potentially not. But in either case, the fish will be more susceptible to bacterial infections than would occur under natural conditions.

Which is where probiotics enter the discussion. Obviously, there are problems associated with their packaging but equally obvious, it can be accomplished, as it has, both for commercial and hobbyist purposes. I can personally attest to the effectiveness of at least one brand of product in reducing waste.

It goes beyond my ability to perform water changes. I am a water changing junkie. It goes beyond aquarium husbandry. I crack open every canister filter once per month for cleaning, HOB's are cleaned weekly, and prefilters are cleaned weekly, sometimes more often. Nothing can or will replace the importance of these efforts in maintaining fish health. It's all about attempting to keep organics as near to "natural" levels as possible and probiotics, even skipping their scientifically proven ability to improve protein digestibility as this is not something I can evaluate on a personal bases, can help maintain lower organics. No matter how well you gravel vac, you will never get it all. Even with cleaning a canister filter monthly, you still have 4 weeks worth of crap coating the media and feeding colonies of bacteria that we would be better off without. I can personally attest that functional probiotics significantly reduces what is cleaned from my filters and what I remove via a gravel vac.

So you take a science that is still in it's early phases and seek improvements. Not discard it outright. As I stated to you previously, currently, world wide harvesting of fish is 91 million tons with the maximum sustainable harvest being about 100 million tons. As we get closer to the maximum sustainable harvest (and go over), the price of fish meal will continue to increase but beyond that, we'll start seeing an increased portion of that meal redirected for human consumption. We are not talking 100 years into the future, we are talking 10-20 years in our future. I still plan on being in the hobby at that point. Probiotics will become even more important as the quality and quantity of the meals available to us declines. They can serve a purpose now. They will serve an even more important purpose in the future.

In this instance, I think the "why's" are of more importance than the "why nots". But I do agree that not every product that advertises itself as containing probiotics will contain functional probiotics. Some products I've tried have had the desired result. Others have not.

I have not yet evaluated several of the "prebiotic" products but intend to do so. If functional, these would resolve many of the packaging concerns.
 
So you take a science that is still in it's early phases and seek improvements. Not discard it outright.

I didn't discard anything outright. I have been researching the use of probiotics in fish feed before most people on this site knew that the concept of adding probiotics to tropical fish food even existed.

And while it would be nice to be able to predict the future, I don't own a crystal ball so I have no way in determining the future use, prices, or overall stability of commodities such as fish meal, krill meal, squid meal, shrimp meal, etc. What I can say with certainty is that supply & demand (and the eventual rise in overall prices) will balance a lot of these things out.

Commercial aquaculture has (and still currently is) spending millions of $$$ in research every year in an attempt to find less costly ways to supply protein & fat to farm fish. Lots of progress has been made in this area, and while much of this is species dependent (cold-water trout/salmon vs warm-water tilapia/catfish etc) the changes are already taking place.

With more time & money spent on research, and increases in the cost of marine proteins such fish meal, one is going to eventually see a drastic reduction in the use of fish meal by commercial aquaculture, and/or a drastic drop in farmed fish that are more dependent on marine proteins, such as salmon, vs species of fish that can be raised on large amounts of lower cost terrestrial based grains (corn, wheat, soybeans etc), such as tilapia. Also, while there is no question that there are many fish that have been overexploited in our oceans, there are also species that have been underexploited, that could be considered in the future for commercial fish feed use.

But for now, I would prefer to stick to the present day, and the facts that we currently have at our disposal regarding the use of probiotics.

You said;

The problems faced by aquaculture and hobbyist are not far removed from each other. They are the same. Trying to house fish in an enclosed environment, potentially overcrowded, potentially not. But in either case, the fish will be more susceptible to bacterial infections than would occur under natural conditions.


Say what? When you consider some of the large producers, they aren't even in the same stratosphere, let alone the same. When was the last time that you had a bacterial case of Pseudomonas sp or Aeromonas sp wipe out one of your tanks? These are common strains of bacteria that cause millions in damages on fish farms throughout the world every year. This does not even begin to factor in the vast amount of virul, fungal, worms, ectoparasites, and various other protozoa that can EXPLODE in numbers at any given time on an intensive, or worse, super-intensive aquaculture facility. This is why in parts of the world such as SE ASIA, India, China, etc they have so many shipments of commercially produced shrimp & fish stopped by US Customs, they often contain large amounts of antibiotics and fungicides that are not allowed by the FDA in fish destined for human consumption.

In September of this year alone, the FDA refused 148 shipments of seafood imports.


In an academic article published last year, Indian scientists reported on the results of a survey of about fifty freshwater shrimp farms in West Bengal. The survey found that 40% of the shrimp farms used chloramphenicol, 10% used nitrofurans, 23% used oxytetracycline, and over one-third used malachite green. The article highlighted the dangers posed by the use of chloramphenicol and nitrofurans:

The antibiotics chloramphenicol (mostly used in the farms) and nitrofurans are banned worldwide for use in the production of foods because of their serious side effects. Chloramphenicol may cause fatal aplastic anemia and nitrofurans are classified as carcinogens.

In another academic paper by Indian scientists, delivered to the International Conference on Chemical, Biological and Environment Sciences in December of 2011, the frequent use of chloramphenicol to prevent disease in both shrimp hatcheries and farms was emphasized. Tamilnadu-based scientists reported finding chloramphenicol in 25 out of the 40 samples taken from shrimp farms (the paper states that only two of these samples were &#8220;above the permissible limits&#8221;). The paper further asserted that the use of antibiotics is an economic necessity in shrimp hatcheries:

Out of all farmed samples, 70% of hatchery samples are more exposed to antibiotics due to the fact that they are less immune and affected during post larval stages. All penaeid shrimp in hatcheries and farms encounter bacterial problems that impact on production. Antibiotic treatments to control pathogenic bacterial problems have been practiced in hatchery to yield better production.


Sorry, but this is nothing like what the average hobbyist deals with in their home aquarium. Not even remotely close.


So let's for arguments sake say that a fish feed company is using a stable form of probiotic, one that can handle the high heat of extrusion, and that is in high enough numbers of live spores that it will have an affect on the reduction of solid waste. (the only fish waste that one can see with the naked eye)

The brand of food that you use (Hikari) has stated that their probiotic is based on Bacillus subtilis spores, a good commercial example of that being Calsporin, manufactured by the Calpis Co. Ltd out of Tokyo Japan.

Does it work? Well, according to the more positive studies, yes & no.

http://munin.uit.no/bitstream/handle/10037/3888/article.pdf?sequence=1

While it does improve the overall feed conversion ratio (FCR) the food used in that study mostly consisted of soybeans & wheat, and while it did have a positive affect on the intestinal microbiota at the initial stages of the feed trial, that apparently soon diminished over time. The longer it was fed, the lesser the positive affect. Also, while it was shown to elevate the expression of some immune related genes, it did not improve the disease resistance of koi challenged with Aeromonas hydrophila, which is one of the most problematic species of Aeromonas found in commercial aquaculture.

So what does that tell the average hobbyist that keeps ornamental species of fish?

Not a whole lot.

If you feed your fish a diet that is high in terrestrial based carbs such as wheat flour, brewer's dried yeast, gluten meal, corn, soybeans, etc - adding a probiotic such as Bacillus subtilis in large enough quantity could possibly increase the FCR (depending on the species of fish), thereby causing an increase in growth, as well as a reduction in overall waste compared to feeding the same quality of feed, sans the probiotic. It could also help elevate the immune system of the fish, but so could numerous bioactive compounds found in natural raw ingredients such as, Antarctic Krill, Garlic, Spirulina, and micro algae such as Haematococcus pluvialis. Not to mention utilizing key vitamins & trace minerals at levels that far exceed the industry standards. As an example, instead of having a post extrusion level of 140 mg/kg of Vitamin C, having a level of 500+ mg/kg of Vitamin C. (with most of that coming from the raw ingredients themselves)

As far as immune response in finfish, there is far more data currently available to support the latter, vs the former. If I was a commercial farmer of shrimp, tilapia etc, especially in an intensive over crowded system, I would probably use everything (safe & legal) at my disposal if cost wasn't an issue. But I'm not, I'm a hobbyist with under 500 gallons in total, and my tanks are no where near heavily stocked (quite the opposite), and certainly NOTHING such as commonly seen on a commercial fish farm.

BTW - speaking of Hikari, the following was sent to me in 2010 regarding a question I had about this very subject. The person responding to that question was Mr. Keita Harada, one of the top researchers at Hikari's Kyorin Research facility in Japan.

Dear Neil,

Thanks for your understanding.

>Personally I believe that one can keep their tank water & filters clean
by simply performing regular maintenance.

Yes you are right, if koi are kept in good environment with proper filtering and maintenance, additional probiotics is not necessary.

But with help of probiotics, the frequency of maintenance, water change and filter cleaning can be reduced.

Please remember that Saki-Hikari, our probiotics added koi food, is originally developed for koi breeder. For professionals, reducing maintenance means less labor, which implies higher profit.

For this field probiotics is quite effective.

With best regards,

Regards,
Harada


Again, I'm just a hobbyist, not a professional koi breeder that is concerned about turning a higher profit. If I was, personally I wouldn't be feeding a food that costs almost double the $$$ compared to some of the premium brands of food currently on the market. Oh right, I forgot, theirs contains Baccillus subtilis. :shakehead

Right from the horses mouth -------->>>>> Yes you are right, if koi are kept in good environment with proper filtering and maintenance, additional probiotics is not necessary.




Over & out
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rakeboy
kmuda,

I ran across one of the articles that you wrote on heterotrophic bacteria in aquariums, and I got to thinking about this past discussion. I think that you may have missed the bigger picture when it comes to probiotics and the types of bacteria being utilized in aquaculture.

http://www.oscarfish.com/article-home/water/72-heterotrophic-bacteria.html

In your article linked to above you state:
Don't increase heterotrophic bacteria populations by using products labeled as &#8220;sludge reducers&#8221;. These products simply are not required as heterotrophic bacteria do not need a &#8220;boost&#8221;. If you carefully read the instructions on these products, they usually identify that their use may result in temporary ammonia/nitrite spikes. After reading this document, you should understand the potential causes.

.... then later in that article you state:
While not necessarily in strict compliance with the subject of this article, this topic is worthy of mention as it will become a significant component of an aquarist&#8217;s tool kit in the future. Already, we are seeing &#8220;Probiotic&#8221; products being offered on the market. An example of this is Hikari Bio-Gold Plus, which utilizes a specific strain of Bacillus bacteria to aid in digestion and the break down of fish waste. Commercial shrimp and fish farms are currently experimenting with probiotic formulations that protect their product from bacterial or viral ailments. This involves adding one type of microbe that is harmless to livestock, to defeat/prevent another type of microbe, such as harmful bacteria. It is only a matter of time before these experiments result in products available to aquarist.


FYI - bacteria from the Bacillus genus that are used in probiotics, are heterotrophic bacteria - the exact same type of bacteria that many companies market as "sludge reducers", hence the reason why you are seeing less solid waste in your tank, and filters. (as previously stated by yourself)

A good example of several of the more popular or common bacteria, and their applications in aquaculture. As you can see in the link below some of the Bacillus blends (Bacillus subtilis/Bacillus licheniformis ) are utilized for both animal feed, and septic systems.

http://www.bio-cat.com/products


In aquaculture, adding large amounts of non-pathogenic bacteria to out compete & displace harmful bacteria is referred to as competitive exclusion. http://www.theaquariumwiki.com/Competitive_Exclusion


Those sludge reducing heterotrophic bacteria in a bottle sold by numerous companies at the end of the day are performing the exact same thing as the ones that you are feeding your fish. They aid in the reduction of waste, and by adding a quantity of these harmless waste consuming bacteria, it prevents harmful pathogenic bacteria from getting a foot hold by starving them out. It's actually the complete opposite of what you previously stated -
And with higher levels of organics will be found higher concentrations of heterotrophic bacteria.... and higher concentrations of heterotrophic bacteria will result in higher concentrations of pathogenic or potentially pathogenic bacteria.

One can keep the organics in check by simply performing regular maintenance (filter cleaning, water changes, gravel vacuuming, etc) as well as adding waste reducing products if required to boost the levels of heterotrophic bacteria.

And to get these kind of results one does not have to feed these bacteria to their fish, they can simply add them to the tank water on a regular basis. http://www.keetonaqua.com/case-studies/tilapia/

Certainly some of these bacteria have been shown in some studies and using certain species of fish that these bacteria can improve the overall feed conversion ratio ....... but of foods that mostly consist of wheat & soybeans. Of course that's a non issue for anyone that is NOT feeding large amounts of terrestrial based starch derived from wheat, soybeans, corn, etc to their fish.

But that's the part that Keita Harada, the researcher at Hikari's Kyorin Research facility in Japan failed to mention. Ditto to Cobalt Aquatics, and every other company who will follow suit & jump on the latest probiotic bandwagon, while using soybeans, corn, etc in their food -instead of simply using higher quality ingredients with greater digestibility. :screwy:


From an organic reduction standpoint, this isn't exactly cutting edge technology. These exact same heterotrophic bacteria have been used to digest & remove waste from septic systems for decades, the only difference being that in the past no one referred to them as probiotics.

As an example, http://www.effens.com/our-products/septic-magician/

Septic Magician is a 100% Natural Organic septic tank bacteria cleaner with probiotic microorganisms that promotes a natural and sustainable environment for your septic system. Unlike most enzyme-based septic tank solutions, Septic Magician supplies the effective beneficial microbes that do the work. Enzymes typically function to activate or wake up whatever surviving beneficial bacteria that may still be present in the septic system. But often there are not enough beneficial bacteria present. Septic Magician solves this septic tank problem by directly applying millions of healthy and hungry beneficial probiotic bacteria who clean septic systems like no other septic cleaning products. Plus Septic Magician contains natural anti-oxidant properties that eliminate septic odors instantly on contact.

Ingredients:

Purified Water with Anti-Oxidants and a Proprietary Blend of Probiotic Cultures that Naturally Eliminate Septic Tank Odors and Waste.

Septic Magician is an OMRI Certified Organic Probiotic that is Non-Toxic, Non-Corrosive, Biodegradable, Chemical-Free and provides for a sustainable healthy downstream environment.


And as many of these companies saw the potential added revenue, they started marketing and selling these *probiotic* bacteria for ponds, and aquariums. Why not. I was personally recommending the use of septic tank bacteria to fellow hobbyists close to a decade ago, even for kick starting a cycle. Some are just as safe, and work just as well, as many of the aquatic based products that sell for 10-20 times the price.


For cycling a new tank, personally I would stick to "live" nitrifying bacteria products with a solid track record for safety & effectiveness, such as Seachem Stability, but for adding *probiotic* heterotrophic bacteria IMO there is nothing better, or cheaper, than the bacteria commonly found in septic tank cleaning products.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rakeboy
MonsterFishKeepers.com