Where Does Bacteria Come From?

[tmack]

I'm under the impression that it comes from the air. I'v heard some say it's in the water and that makes sense if you have well water but if you have city water then the chlorine levels should kill off any bacteria. I bet it's in the air.

Actually, it is becoming quite a problem today about chloramine resistant oxidizing bacteria. The problem is that the bacteria strains, the same ones we culture in our fishtanks, are able to take the amine part (ammonia) off the choramine and use it as an energy source. Exactly how they use the ammonia in our fishtanks. The real problem with these is that ammonia are then neutralizing the chloramine that should be used to kill E. coli and all the other nasties that we really do want killed in our water. And you can't just use more chloramine since that is just more food for those resistant strains. One study I read said that in the year-long study, over 60% of chloramine using water companies in the US and Australia had problems with oxidizing bacteria.

So, if your water company uses chloramine, guess what strains probably ended up in your tank? The resistant ones from the water company. Otherwise, there are bacteria pretty much everywhere. No treatment process at the plant will be 100% effective. These oxidizing bacteria are in every bit of water everywhere. Unless you keep a room like the clean room Intel uses to make microchips, life is going to find a way to get into pretty much any water anywhere.

If the bacteria are stripping the ammonia from the chloramine, that should release chlorine I would think - the same way a simple dechlorinator like thiosulfate would. Would the free chlorine not then act to kill things like E. Coli, and even the bacteria doing the stripping? I don't think any bacteria can be resistant to free chlorine. Unless the free chlorine (which is highly reactive) just reacts with something else immediately before having much chance to do much damage to bacteria? And, if these problem causing bacteria are indeed the same bacteria that we want in our tanks, why does it take so long to cycle? If they've become so much of a problem in water treatment, the tap water of those of us whose water is treated with chloramine should be loaded with the right bacteria?

So far this thread has raised more questions in my mind than it's answered

 

[Bignose]

The chlorine that is left after the oxidizing bacteria take ammonia off it isn't the same as chlorine gas. Firstly, chlorine gas, Cl_2, will dissolve as Cl_2, unlike table salt, ClNa, which will dissolve into its constituent ions, Cl- and Na+. Chlorine gas remains Cl_2 in the water, and that form is the killer. In Cl- form, it is pretty much harmless. When the oxidizing bacteria do their thing, it leaves a Cl-, not Cl_2. So again, pretty harmless. Secondly, just like using regular chlorine gas, some of the remaining pure chlorine can dissolve out of the water. Back when water companies were only using chlorine gas, there were no such things a water conditioners, everyone knew to just let the buckets sit out 1-2 days and the chlorine gas would dissipate.

Re: "But in that case, doesn't that mean that our bacteria colonies would also be resistant to them. So, in theory, we could use straight tap water without dechlorinator and not do any harm to the colony if they have developed that resistance." Yes, that is exactly what that means. In fact, it was thread a few months ago discussing how water conditioners are unneeded which prompted me to look up the scientific papers that discussed the problems water companies are having today. I will admit that I was skeptical at first too, but many researchers have reported on this today, and I trust their expertise over mine (which is pretty much zero). The person in discussion in this thread has been using non-conditioned chloraminated water for over a year and had no problems whatsoever. While the practice is sound, I still feel better about putting 10 cents of conditioner in with my water changes... it is so cheap I figure I'd rather be safe than sorry.

It still takes a long time to cycle since "problem" is an ambiguous term. The water companies would be worried about a concentration of 1-1000 bacteria per liter. But only 1000 bacteria/L would be an insignificant amount compared to the millions needed to process the ammonia in a fishtank. Cycling is also slow since the oxidizng bacteria are the old man/Sunday drivers of the bacteria world. The average bacteria species, given adequate resources (food, light, water, whatever it needs, etc.), doubled roughly every 4 hours or so. I think that the current record is one species that hits about 10 mins. But, 4 hours is typical. The oxidizing bacteria in fishtanks take 20-30 hours to double. LIke I said, the old man drivers of the bacteria world. So, to get to the millions takes a lot longer than other bacteria species. And, when you only have 1000 or so to start with...

The big thing, rdd, is that oxidizing bacteria is in all water, everywhere. Again, it may be just a tiny amount tens per liter or thing on that order, but there are some in all water. And, no process can kill 100% of all bacteria. The goal is just to get the bacterial levels down to safe, not 100% clean. So, some bacteria come in with every single drop of water in the house. The bacteria also are small and light enough that they can ride droplets of water in the air. Again, each droplet in the air is not swarming with bacteria, many probably don't have much at all, but a few here or there. Many of the bacteria starve, since if they don't find ammonia within that 20-30 hours window, they will die. But, a rare few will survive, and come in with tap water, come in riding a droplet in the air, etc. Or, much more succinctly, "everywhere". I am sorry if that answer is unsatisfactory to you, but it really is accurate. I don't think that anyone in the scientific world is looking for one specific source of bacteria, since they all understand how there are many different sources. For that matter, I am not sure how you would go about looking for the source of bacteria, anyway, since it is not like you can follow one around like a wild bird or dog or something. You can't tag them and follow their day to day travels like they do with populations of birds or giraffes or anything they want to study.

 

[rdd1952]

As I mentioned, I do understand what you're saying. It's just that so many things we have been taught and come to believe in fish keeping are contradictory. And as you could probably see from the thread I referenced from last year, the general consensus then was that it was airborne. I don't hae a clue nor do I claim to know where they come from.

Re: "But in that case, doesn't that mean that our bacteria colonies would also be resistant to them. So, in theory, we could use straight tap water without dechlorinator and not do any harm to the colony if they have developed that resistance." Yes, that is exactly what that means. In fact, it was thread a few months ago discussing how water conditioners are unneeded which prompted me to look up the scientific papers that discussed the problems water companies are having today. I will admit that I was skeptical at first too, but many researchers have reported on this today, and I trust their expertise over mine (which is pretty much zero). The person in discussion in this thread has been using non-conditioned chloraminated water for over a year and had no problems whatsoever. While the practice is sound, I still feel better about putting 10 cents of conditioner in with my water changes... it is so cheap I figure I'd rather be safe than sorry.

I agree that I will continue to use dechlorinator. As you also mentioned, chlorine will eventually dissipate from the water but the chloramine that water companies use today won't. And even if it doesn't harm the bacteria colony, it still isn't good for the fish. Did the thread say what type fish he was using?

 

[tmack]

The chlorine that is left after the oxidizing bacteria take ammonia off it isn't the same as chlorine gas. Firstly, chlorine gas, Cl_2, will dissolve as Cl_2, unlike table salt, ClNa, which will dissolve into its constituent ions, Cl- and Na+. Chlorine gas remains Cl_2 in the water, and that form is the killer. In Cl- form, it is pretty much harmless. When the oxidizing bacteria do their thing, it leaves a Cl-, not Cl_2. So again, pretty harmless. Secondly, just like using regular chlorine gas, some of the remaining pure chlorine can dissolve out of the water. Back when water companies were only using chlorine gas, there were no such things a water conditioners, everyone knew to just let the buckets sit out 1-2 days and the chlorine gas would dissipate.

Re: "But in that case, doesn't that mean that our bacteria colonies would also be resistant to them. So, in theory, we could use straight tap water without dechlorinator and not do any harm to the colony if they have developed that resistance." Yes, that is exactly what that means. In fact, it was thread a few months ago discussing how water conditioners are unneeded which prompted me to look up the scientific papers that discussed the problems water companies are having today. I will admit that I was skeptical at first too, but many researchers have reported on this today, and I trust their expertise over mine (which is pretty much zero). The person in discussion in this thread has been using non-conditioned chloraminated water for over a year and had no problems whatsoever. While the practice is sound, I still feel better about putting 10 cents of conditioner in with my water changes... it is so cheap I figure I'd rather be safe than sorry.

It still takes a long time to cycle since "problem" is an ambiguous term. The water companies would be worried about a concentration of 1-1000 bacteria per liter. But only 1000 bacteria/L would be an insignificant amount compared to the millions needed to process the ammonia in a fishtank. Cycling is also slow since the oxidizng bacteria are the old man/Sunday drivers of the bacteria world. The average bacteria species, given adequate resources (food, light, water, whatever it needs, etc.), doubled roughly every 4 hours or so. I think that the current record is one species that hits about 10 mins. But, 4 hours is typical. The oxidizing bacteria in fishtanks take 20-30 hours to double. LIke I said, the old man drivers of the bacteria world. So, to get to the millions takes a lot longer than other bacteria species. And, when you only have 1000 or so to start with...

The big thing, rdd, is that oxidizing bacteria is in all water, everywhere. Again, it may be just a tiny amount tens per liter or thing on that order, but there are some in all water. And, no process can kill 100% of all bacteria. The goal is just to get the bacterial levels down to safe, not 100% clean. So, some bacteria come in with every single drop of water in the house. The bacteria also are small and light enough that they can ride droplets of water in the air. Again, each droplet in the air is not swarming with bacteria, many probably don't have much at all, but a few here or there. Many of the bacteria starve, since if they don't find ammonia within that 20-30 hours window, they will die. But, a rare few will survive, and come in with tap water, come in riding a droplet in the air, etc. Or, much more succinctly, "everywhere". I am sorry if that answer is unsatisfactory to you, but it really is accurate. I don't think that anyone in the scientific world is looking for one specific source of bacteria, since they all understand how there are many different sources. For that matter, I am not sure how you would go about looking for the source of bacteria, anyway, since it is not like you can follow one around like a wild bird or dog or something. You can't tag them and follow their day to day travels like they do with populations of birds or giraffes or anything they want to study.

Quite right Bignose! Now I remember why I only had a minor in chemistry LOL - long time ago too. I should have thought about table salt and that when the molecule of NaCl dissassociates into water into the sodium & chlorine ions, that while pure sodium & chlorine chlorine gas are poisonous & highly reactive substances, that these ions formed in water are not the same. We'd all be dead from eating table salt if that were the case!

Interesting on using straight tap water though. I'd have to check with my water company but I believe that they use both chlorine and chloramine in the treatment plant, and was told by someone in an lfs (that seems quite knowledgeable - rare indeed) that chloramine is used (or increased) during rainy periods (my water is from a river dam formed lake & maybe rain runoff causes increased bacteria levels - just guessing on that). In any case I agree with you - better to add 10 cents with of conditioner than wonder if the water is safe or not.

Good information on the replication of these bacteria being at a much slower rate than many other types. I know that some can increase very quickly, but that's obviously not the case here. Too bad someone can't come up with an additive to make the little buggers multiply much more quickly. I still wonder though if some can't come in with the air. As mentioned earlier in this thread many bacteria can increase cell wall thickness and enter a spore stage during adverse conditions. But if that were the case with these bacteria we could have dry forms of Bio-Spira, rather than things like the dry BioZyme products that have never done anything at all for me.

 

[tmack]

.....Cycling is also slow since the oxidizng bacteria are the old man/Sunday drivers of the bacteria world. The average bacteria species, given adequate resources (food, light, water, whatever it needs, etc.), doubled roughly every 4 hours or so. I think that the current record is one species that hits about 10 mins. But, 4 hours is typical. The oxidizing bacteria in fishtanks take 20-30 hours to double. LIke I said, the old man drivers of the bacteria world. So, to get to the millions takes a lot longer than other bacteria species.

By the way, is there anywhere online I can read more about the replication rate of these bacteria? I'd be interested to get a little more informed about it. Must be the biology background in me! I'd like to see what & how the studies were done if possible. I might even be able to get some information or ideas on improving the growth of them. I've been to the Bio-Spira site but hopefully there's more out there than that.

Thanks

 

[raptorrex]

if you are worried about lack of bacteria for your cycle, just chuck in a handfull of good garden soil. this is packed with the bacteria we are after.

like it or not, understand it or not, these bacteria are everywhere. though the amounts may be small, they are there.

there has been plenty of evidence, and for once backed up by good science, to clear this one up. postulating the some chemicals may interfere with its development, may be fun, but is not really the question asked on the first post. Where does the bacteria for my tank come from? that has been well and truly answered. EVERYWHERE!!

lol blaming a failed cycle on lack of bacteria. well as i said, there are many things that go wrong in a cycle, but lack of naturel bacteria, is unlikly to be one of them!

 

[rdd1952]

if you are worried about lack of bacteria for your cycle, just chuck in a handfull of good garden soil. this is packed with the bacteria we are after.

A hand full of garden soil packed full of pesticides, fertilizer, polutants from the air. I think I'll pass. We just as well fill the tank from the run off from the storm drain. I'm sure it would be full of bacteria too.

there has been plenty of evidence, and for once backed up by good science, to clear this one up. postulating the some chemicals may interfere with its development, may be fun, but is not really the question asked on the first post. Where does the bacteria for my tank come from? that has been well and truly answered. EVERYWHERE!!

I don't argue the fact that there are bacteria everywhere. But only a particular type of bacteria will process ammonia and nitrite. Maybe those particular bacteria are everywhere too but I seriously doubt that every bacteria in the world is present every place in the world.

 

[tmack]

I very highly doubt that soil bacteria are what we're after in our tanks. I have no doubt that there are nitrifying bacteria in soil, but there are different types of nitrifying bacteria, and we want the aquatic ones. You'd have to show me some good evidence of what you're saying on that one. If if was that easy it would be great, and people wouldn't have to spend years developing a product like Bio-Spira. Might be good to prove or disprove though by running a side by side test with identical tanks and putting some soil in one, and seeing if that would speed it up. I'd also like to see a good study of what inteferes with the growth of the bacteria we're after, other than the obvious chlorine, etc. There must be things in certain water supplies that aren't obvious to us as having a negative effect on cycle speed, or maybe even some things missing - minerals or something. Maybe water hardness has an impact on nitrifying bacteria growth? pH? Seems like any time one question gets answered it just generates more questions, but that's life I guess.

I guess we may be getting off topic, but are we really?

 

[rdd1952]

The replication rate was mentioned earlier. I found this very interesting article. It would seem to explain why some peoples cycles are much faster than others. Based on this, if your pH is 7.2 or above, then your tank would cycle twice as fast as a tank with 7.0 pH, 3 times faster than 6.5 pH water and 10 times faster than one with a pH of 6.0. The article also confirms my belief that the higher the water temp, the faster the cycle.

I thought this article was also interesting. It mentions a time period of 15 to 24 hours for nitrifying bacteria to double. A little faster than what bignose had mentioned but still in the same ballpark. Based on the topic of discussion here, I thought this like from a little over half way down was very interesting:

"Nitrifying bacteria do not form spores and cannot survive drying. This process kills the bacteria leaving no viable bacteria which might inoculate another culture. It has been debated whether or not nitrifying bacteria could survive freeze drying, but, even this is doubtful."

Based on that, and I don't know where he derived that information, it would lead me to the conclusing that the bacteria definitely come from the water but probably not form the air.

 

[tmack]

Good and interesting information rdd1952! Additional questions answered! Now I just need to think of what new questions can come from these new answers. Right now I'm stumped though - maybe I can dream some up sleeping tonight. Seriously, this thread is digging up a lot of worthwhile information. Some of it may not be strictly on topic, but who cares as long as we're learning some helpful things. No reason to stifle knowledge just because it may be a bit off off topic.

 

[WILDER]

I need a lay down after reading all this info went over my head as usual.
Explain in simple terms for us well not get many brains cells.

 

[tmack]

I need a lay down after reading all this info went over my head as usual.
Explain in simple terms for us well not get many brains cells.

Hah - good one Wilder! We'll have to come out with a condensed version soon - I could use one myself!

 

[rdd1952]

I need a lay down after reading all this info went over my head as usual.
Explain in simple terms for us well not get many brains cells.

Me too. The main thing I did understand was the effect pH has on bacteria reproduction. I also thought the part about the bacteria starters was interesting. The fact that they contain little or no nitrifying bacteria which most of us have thought to be the case all along:

"There are many brands of bacterial mixtures for jump starting or accelerating the break-in period of newly set-up aquariums on the market. On what basis were they formulated? From research that has been done thus far we know that just putting some N. europæa and Nitrobacter winogradskyi in a bottle does not work."

 

[raptorrex]

if you are worried about lack of bacteria for your cycle, just chuck in a handfull of good garden soil. this is packed with the bacteria we are after.

A hand full of garden soil packed full of pesticides, fertilizer, polutants from the air. I think I'll pass. We just as well fill the tank from the run off from the storm drain. I'm sure it would be full of bacteria too.

there has been plenty of evidence, and for once backed up by good science, to clear this one up. postulating the some chemicals may interfere with its development, may be fun, but is not really the question asked on the first post. Where does the bacteria for my tank come from? that has been well and truly answered. EVERYWHERE!!

I don't argue the fact that there are bacteria everywhere. But only a particular type of bacteria will process ammonia and nitrite. Maybe those particular bacteria are everywhere too but I seriously doubt that every bacteria in the world is present every place in the world.

dont suppose you would like to take a small wager on your comments about soil would you, say twelve months wages?

how do you think the ammonia gets turned into nitrite in the soil?

http/www.geocities.com/josh_shilling/bacteria.html
i found an articale here though it does not support ether view. it does point out that there are more than one type of bacteria at work in our aquriums.

it also pionts out that if you have too many bacteria in your aquarium, this can itself lead to an excess of ammonia and lack of oxygen!! the problem with your failed cycle??

 

[rdd1952]

it also pionts out that if you have too many bacteria in your aquarium, this can itself lead to an excess of ammonia and lack of oxygen!! the problem with your failed cycle??

Not the problem with my failed cycle. I seriously doubt that from the day I added water to the tank there were too many bacteria in my tank. And considering I was running 4 airstones off a Rena 200 airpump (for 20 to 30 gallon tanks) in a 10 gallon tank, I know there was no lack of oxygen.