Hello All:
My name is Dr Timothy Hovanec - yes, that Dr Hovanec who's motives, interests etc are, among other things, being debated in this thread. I thought I would log-in and try to answer some of the questions posed about nitrifiers and nitrifying products. Of course, I am willing to answer questions about these types of bugs and the research I did (and am still doing) but I won't get into personal attacks and that kind of pointless name calling etc.
I generally don't get involved with these types of conversations but it seemed that this group was interested in the science behind nitrifiers and nitrifying products so I thought I would attempt to add to the conversation over the course of a few posts which may get a little long.
First, to try and clear-up a few things. I started keeping tropical fish when I was a kid (6 years old) and later when I found out you could actually make a living studying fish the goal I set for myself was to go to college and get a degree in biology and work with fish. Unlike many who never realize their dream I was fortunate to be able to achieve mine and was always able to study and work with fish and fish related projects. After getting my B.S., I was a US Peace Corps volunteer working with milkfish and shrimp in the Philippines, then back in States got my M.S. working on ammonia toxicity and excretion in striped bass and stated working at a fish farm applying this research. In 1990, the owner of Marineland offered me the "keys to the candy store" - a chance to set-up my own lab, work on what I wanted and set my own priorities. When you own the company you can spend your money how you see fit and not answer to accountants and suits - which he never did. In 1993, while working at Marineland I went back to get my Ph.D. at UCSB. The goal was to try and figure out where nitrifiers lived in aquaria and what they liked and disliked. There was no thought of creating a new product and in fact if you read my articles written at that time, I wrote what everyone believed - Nitrosomonas europaea and Nitrobacter winogradskyi where the ammonia- and nitrite-oxidizing in aquaria and everywhere else, this was considered 'fact' and I believed it like everyone else.
At UCSB, I was lucky to met a Professor there named Ed DeLong who was not only a famous microbiologist before age 35 but also a fish hobbyist (btw: to whomever wrote that maybe Prof DeLong was an adjunct professor - Prof DeLong is today a fully tenured professor at MIT and this year was elected by his peers to the US National Academy of Sciences, please do not denigrate a person you have no knowledge of. Ed has more papers published in Nature and Science then one thought possible).
In any case, Prod DeLong took a fish geek under his wing and taught him to be a microbiologist. If you read the first of my peer-reviewed papers who see it deals with DNA techniques to try and find Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter in aquaria - all the results were negative. This was the first hint that what was written was not correct. The goal was to develop the DNA techniques so I could answer the question - where do nitrifiers live in the aquaria? The gravel, the filter, the tank walls etc but I could not find the traditional nitrifiers anywhere. It took 3 years of work to get that negative answer. Now the research took a big left turn - if not N. europaea or Nb. winogradskyi then who?
The answer this question took 2 more years for the nitrite-oxidizer (1998) and 4 years for the ammonia-oxidizer (2000). During this time, patents were applied for which is how funding bodies (be they governments or companies) try to recoup some of their investments IF something comes out of the research - applying for patents is a gamble. Universities has large staffed office of technology transfer that try to find companies to license their patent research. It it naive to think that research at Universities to done "just for the good of mankind" Sure some is but these days with dwindling resources and funding cuts Universities are looking for money from all sources. Also, don't think patents are cheap - just the translation fees for one patent in select European countries was $120,000. This does not include all the atty fees, filling fees, etc. We can discuss patents separately if you all wish.
As for the originality and importance of the research - many have mis-interpreted the research and write that I declared that Nitrobacter does not oxidizing nitrite. This is not true - what I wrote is that "the data suggest that Nitrobacter winogradskyi and close relatives were not the dominant nitrite-oxidizing bacteria in freshwater aquaria. Instead, nitrite oxidation in freshwater aquaria appeared to be mediated by bacteria closely related to Nitrospira moscoviensis and Nitrosprira marina." My research was on aquaria and I did not extend it beyond that. However, my work was published in Jan 1998 - in that same year 3 other papers by 3 other groups (1 in Australia and 2 in Germany) published their work that showed Nitrospira bacteria were important in other systems including wastewater, sewage and aquaculture. Today, the prevailing theory (which I will post in another thread as this is getting too long) is that Nitrobacter occurs in high nitrite environments while Nitrospira dominates in low nitrite environments (i.e., aquaria).
It is wrong to assume that all bacteria can live in all environments and under all conditions.
I'll stop here for the night but, of course, a central question is why do bottled mixes work, not work, some times work etc. I will next post my thoughts on this subject and also provide research results (not mine own) on nitrifiers in tapwater.
Of course, I welcome questions and comments and hope we can learn by the exchange.
I apologize in advance for the length of this post but the subject is important and there is too much mis-information out there.
Cheers and thanks for reading.
DrTim
to TFF (Tropical Fish Forums),
