The Use of Probiotics in Aquaculture

[manakh]

In order to make use of anaerobic bacteria, the filter (sump, whatever) would need to have an anoxic zone. This would be an area where water movement is "so slow" (almost dead) where these anaerobes, or facultative anaerobes could thrive, in an nearly oxygen free environment. These dead zones often create hydrogen sulfide pockets, that when released as bubbles, smell like rotten eggs, and if there is enough of it, can be deadly to sensitive fish.
Not a desirable idea inside a house.
This is not the common, in aquariums, so what these bio additives do instead, is provide food (enzymes etc) that promote aerobic organisms ( bacteria, rotifers etc) that compete with less desirable organisms.
Rotifers need plenty of oxygen, as well as the bacteria we want, why filter turnover rates are kept high.
Back in the 90s, plenums were causing a stir, they were anoxic areas under a deep sand bed substrate with little to no water movement, I experimented with them, but because I kept cichlids that dig, I could not maintain that anoxic area. They were mostly used for nitrate reduction in salt water tanks, that were expensive to do water changes on, kind over over kill in freshwater tanks, that are easy and cheap to do water changes on.

Ya I ran across anoxic filtration a while back and how it works, I'm thinking about doing an over the tank 45 quart "sump" in a polypropylene horse feeding trough hanging off the wall at the base of a very small window using clay kitty litter and red fluorite for iron in small baskets but with lava rock around the baskets and pothos (rock to just hold pothos roots in place). Inside my large sump after mechanical and bio media I have a 5 gallon bucket of pond matrix with very very minimal flow moving through, now I can almost guarantee it's not slow enough to be a true anoxic zone but with pond matrix and their claim of being able to grow anaerobic bacteria even in some flow I thought I'd give it a try. If this doesn't work then worst case I'm out some money but my 300 gallon tank will never lack bio media.

So this lead me to the questions of this affecting or out competing anaerobic bacteria?

Is anaerobic bacteria necessary?- no, I actually have a 1hp well pump hooked up for draining tanks and watering the garden outside rated at 21gpm (before loss or head pressure). But this tank is my no budget experiment and build it all for fun tank. But I don't want to fail an ongoing experiment by starting the next if it's avoidable. I'll be doing rid x in other tanks for sure but checking before doing it on this one in question.

 

[RD.]

Bacillus sp. is mentioned as as being most commonly used in these bacterial treatments -- I'm just wondering if Rhodospirillaceae (nonsulfur photosynthetic bacteria) are also equally useful in this regard or are Bacillus better?

I have no idea, it's been ages since I read up on all the various bacteria that are used in aquaculture circles.

 

[islandguy11]

I have no idea, it's been ages since I read up on all the various bacteria that are used in aquaculture circles.

If you ever feel like it there's quite a few studies that focus on photosynthentic bacteria, their effectiveness and versatility in being able to survive in different conditions. I think one of the interesting things about them is that while I think they're primarily anaerobic bacteria, they can also function in aerobic conditions. Beyond this is getting above my bio-science level, but worth some research if you have time.

Here's one such study:

http://kb.psu.ac.th/psukb/bitstream/2016/11737/1/420149.pdf

:
Among the probiotics used in shrimp aquaculture, purple nonsulpur bacteria (PNSB) are one of the groups with good potential because they can clean up water, reduce sulfide levels and act as probiotics to promote shrimp growth by secreting bioactive compounds that control shrimp pathogens (Qi et al., 2009; Luo et al., 2012).

I raise the question because I'm having a hard time finding anything here like the septic treatments many are mentioning, but this stuff called PSBio is easy to find at LFS and pretty cheap (though maybe not quite as cost efficient as the powdered stuff). At least it mixes in with tank water more easily and doesn't cloud it up at all, but I'm not sure if it's more effective as a nitrifier, or waste/sludge cleaner like the stuff stuff you are using, or maybe both.

 

[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.

 

[Zanzag]

Took the dive and tried this today. My tetras certainly loved eating a lot of the clumps that made it in.

 

[islandguy11]

I understand that the main reason most are using these probiotic treatments is to reduce organic waste, sludge etc. However, as these really aren't issues in my lightly stocked, bare bottom tanks, I'm more interested in the benefits as pertains to out-competing pathogenic bacteria as a preventative measure.

Bacillus sp. is mentioned as as being most commonly used in these bacterial treatments -- I'm just wondering if Rhodospirillaceae (nonsulfur photosynthetic bacteria) are also equally useful in this regard or are Bacillus better?

I have no idea, it's been ages since I read up on all the various bacteria that are used in aquaculture circles.

Couple of questions Neil:
1) Do you think it's better to stick with just one type (or set) of bacteria (e.g. B. subtilis & B. thuringiensis) for say X months, to let them get properly established, or would it be ok to also sometimes use another type of bacteria (e.g. B. licheniformis, or even a photosynthetic bacteria like Rhodospirillaceae)? Like use 1 type for a couple of months and then switch to the other for a couple of months; or maybe even administer them at the same time. Or could this be counter-productive and possibly even de-stabilize a system?
2) On a related note, I'm also wondering about your thoughts if there might be any benefit to using a combo of gram-positive bacteria (e.g. B subtilis) and gram-negative bacteria (e.g. Rhodospirillaceae), esp. with regards to competitive exclusion?

Given how much we actually don't know about probiotic bacteria as biological control agents and are still learning, you might not be able to give concrete answers to these queries, but even your best guesses could be interesting.

 

[RD.]

Hey Barrett, I honestly have no idea and would only be taking wild guesses, which I really hate to do. My main focus with these bacteria were as sludge digesters, to assist in lowering or extending the cleaning of my filter media. The competitive exclusion process was just an added bonus, so I never paid a lot of time attempting to dig further.

 

[Sgowan713]

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).

View attachment 1385560

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.

It is funny to see B.t listed as a probiotic because it is what I use to kill mosquito larvae in any standing water around my yard.

This is a great thread. I think we are just at the tip of the iceberg on this topic. Unfortunately, for the home aquarist the mark of success of these products is healthy animals and a nice looking tank. The mark of failure is usually sickly or dead fish. Both of which they may have had anyway with or without the probiotic. The technology is not here yet to have a rapid home genomic test to validate a balanced bacterial community. Someday soon perhaps.

 

[RD.]

This is a great thread. I think we are just at the tip of the iceberg on this topic. Unfortunately, for the home aquarist the mark of success of these products is healthy animals and a nice looking tank. The mark of failure is usually sickly or dead fish. Both of which they may have had anyway with or without the probiotic. The technology is not here yet to have a rapid home genomic test to validate a balanced bacterial community. Someday soon perhaps.

Yes, and no. For some the mark of success is what you stated, but also a tank that runs much cleaner between filter media cleanings. That is something that can definitely prove that the probiotic is working in that regard. See post below. No question in that members mind regarding the before & after difference. For myself, my fish are typically always healthy & long lived, so I was really not that concerned about competitive exclusion, and mostly focusing on the sludge/organic reduction process. I believe that was the goal of the member quoted below as well.

Thank you RD!

I start dosing my tank with septobac late last year. I believe in the positive probiotic effect and was intrigued with what it might mean for my canisters. I run 2 FX 5's and an Ehiem 2217 on a very heavily overstocked 180 each filter is cleaned every 6 months with a one month gap between each ones cycle.

Well today I cracked open one of the FX 5's for its 6 month cleaning. Typically the foam pads are quite heavy with sludge.

The picture below says it all!!

View attachment 1247221

Hey man, just wondering if you are still using SeptoBac, and if so how much do you dose with, and how often?

 

[RD.]

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!

I suspect that in your part of the world, with many fish keepers having outdoor ponds, this product was formulated with that in mind, a more natural form of pesticide.