Difference between revisions of "Talk:Bacteria bottles, do they work?"
(→Discrepencies in Dr. Tim Hovanecs papers: unsig)
Revision as of 17:06, 30 September 2016
I have in front of me Wheaton's 1977 book on Aquacultural Engineering (http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/3167996); it is a 700 page textbook on the broad subject of Aquaculture. On pages 159 and 160 it merely states that the two bactera are involved in the process. It in no way can be considered the item that announced to the world that these two genera were the ones involved. Other texts on aquaculture at the time also state the same thing; for example: Stickney, 1979 (http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/3167996) so the discovery of these two bactera as the agents involved must be from some earlier time period. -- firstname.lastname@example.org
Thanks for that correction. I was basically going by what Dr. Timothy Hovanec told me. I wonder who discovered the two species and why they got them so wrong!
--Quatermass 21:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
The easy and simple way
If it is really important to start an "instant tank". Take a nice dirty foam filter from an established tank and squeeze the contents into a fish bag for the customer to introduce to their new tank. We took to doing this with anybody who "got it" back in the day at Pet Emporium. If they didn't "get it", sell them danios, cories, livebearers, etc. - fish that can handle a bit of ammonia - a/k/a "starter fish". Why is a two-week wait and gradual populating so hard for people anyway? I still can't wait to add my prize school of cardinal tetras to my 75g, but it gives me something to look forward to! Of course, the delay here is that no LFS stock them, but my old boss has instructions to get me $50 worth of them when he finds good examples at the wholesalers on his stocking trips. Damn, $50 will get me about three ounces of fish. Usedtabe that a tannersworth was a whole meal, and included spuds! Huw Powell 22:51, 17 February 2011 (EST)
Discrepencies in Dr. Tim Hovanecs papers
Looking at two of his papers there seems to be a conflicting answer to 'what is the main/strongest/dominant AOB within an aquarium environment. The 1998 (Referenced in this article) paper states that Nitrospira is the true species of bacteria that thrive in aquariums. And not Nitrosomonas as previously believed. However , if i understand it correctly , a 2001 paper, also with Dr. Tim Hovanec "Identification of Bacteria Responsible for Ammonia Oxidation in Freshwater Aquaria"( link removed ) in the last pages states that "enrichments of Nitrosospira tenuis-like AOB were able to accelerate nitrification when added to new aquaria. However, Nitrosospira tenuis AOB could not be detected by PCR or FISH in the majority of aquarium biomass samples several weeks after being added. Thus, it appears that Nitrosomonas marina-like AOB may outcompete Nitrosospira tenuis-like AOB in thelow-ammonia-concentration environment of an aquarium." I am uncertain of a conversion between mM and PPM for ammonia but the paper also states that "The (NH4)2SO4-insensitive strains found by these researchers, which could tolerate (NH4)2SO4 concentrations above 30 mM, would be grouped in the Nitrosomonas europaea-Nitrosococcus mobilis cluster of Purkhold et al" This seems to suggest that Nitrosomonas is actually the "true species of bacteria that thrive in aquariums". Can somebody else look at this ? They both Seem to be Autotrophic over Heterotrophic which is essentially what I think the article is trying to show, however it would be good to get confirmation.
(unsigned by H3llra1z3r3)