Filter bacteria growth under PH 5.

[Maurice Matla]

On a general aquarium forum i am a member of i came across the claim that at PH 5 or less the growth of filter bacteria basicly grinds down to a hold. So that filtration at that PH level or less is basicly a useless exercise.

Allthough i heard more often that it slows down a bit i never heard of it comming almost to a stand still. Somehow i find it hard to believe it really.

Is there any truth too that claim that we know of ?

[Peter Finke]

Are you interested in blackwater aquaristics or not? If you are, general aquarium forums don’t help at all. They care about normal tap water aquaristics and fish that are mostly not endangered at all.

If you want seriously explore the maintenance of blackwater aquaria, you cannot learn much from those site. Read our fundamental informations to be found in the texts of the menue at the left side, not in this forum. Ans read the book “Prachtguramis” by Finke and Hallmann, and you will discover a world different to that. I did not write that book without a background of forty years of theory and practice.

Personally, I have no filter at all in my 35 small tanks of 12 liters each. But a small sponge filter driven by air is not wrong. But weekly water changing is advisable nevertheless. The water must be near to destilled, without any calcium, the pH should be held constant between 3.0 and 6.0, according to the species. All experts have no problems with this. The dogmas of the normal scene are copied from the normal aquarium literature and that is totally ignoring blackwater aquarium keeping. Many of their doctrines do not apply to this. As do many of the products of the hobby industry.

Forget it if you are seriously interested in Paros. Think about if you are. If you are indeed, try with relatively hardy species first that are not extremely endangered.

[Maurice Matla]

I would hardly be here iff i was not would i ?

I just dig around , alot, and when i come a cross something that might be of interest i bring it up. Just another dumb welder and sensei trying to keep an open mind.

[Peter Finke]

Dear Maurice, you are very welcome here and I hope you get some good informations for your hobby. But Parosphromenus aquaristics is quite a bit more complicated and ambitious than normal aquaristics. Therefore you found that information on bacteria in a general forum for normal aquaristics using tap water. If you have a water nearly without any mineral content and a pH clearly in the acid sphere, things are different than from normal aquaria. There are, for instnace, other bacteria working than in harder water with a pH around 7.0.

So everything is quite in order, and you are welcome here to learn about an aquaristics outside of the normal hobby. But very interesting, opening a glimpse im the highly endangered world of the south-east Asian blackwater organisms adapted to extreme water conditions.

[Patrick Guhmann]

Hello Maurice,

Nitrosomonas occurs at any for aquaristics relevant pH values (2-10). Only the fastest growth rate is around 7-8.

Greetings
Patrick

[Maurice Matla]

Thanks fore explaning

i came across a bit harder than i meant i think. I did not feel unwelcome or anything like that. Maybe in English what i said comes across in different way than it would in Dutch.

I am getting into Paros fore a few reasons one is a desire to take my hobby to the next level after almost 32 years (i started age 5) i feel the time has come to specialise. Giffen the way my life currently is it would have to be in ¨pocket size¨ I simply do not have the possebility to dedecate a whole room to it. Paros of course are very suited fore that. A meter or so of wallspace allready goes a long way.

Getting into a side of aquaristics that contribute´s too a more sustaineble way of doing things is a big one to. a more sustaineble world (of wich species preservation is a part) is something i am very interrested in especially in the way´s the common guy can contribute to that. Combining that with one of my 2 passions in life seems a big plus.

also on a more personal note My grandfather noticed that even as a very young child whenever an aquarium was in sight (he had several large and very large one¨s) i was fasinated. On my fifth birthday h etook me to the LFS to get some food fore his black angels. But when we left a real aquarium (not a kids kind of deal) was in the back of the car. 96 Ltrs , to the horror of my mom. Esealy the best birthday present to this day and i still have that tank running As a reminder. My grandfather and i walked the path just short of 12 years. Day´s before that he finally had to surrender to mother nature weeks short of age 65 his forty years battle with lung deseas ended. The last thing he told me as he often did to one day specialise.

I feel the time is comming up to make good on that promise. In contuary to him i am far from university material nor have a mind much suited fore booklearning as we say here. He thauhgt me many times that that was no matter as long as i never stopped asking questions, look at things from many angels and keep my mind open. I just try doing that.

I think i have enough motivation.

[Dorothee Jöllenbeck-Pfeffel]

Good speech Maurice!

And as for the filters: I think, as Peter Finke says in the Paro Book, for beginners a filter is not wrong, for example concerning the mechanical job it does.
If you don’t have very clean tanks, means with leaves and alder cones and wood and if the nauplii for example didn’t sort out well from the cysts, a mechanical filter is a good thing to have even if the bacteria work is minimized..

[Rafael Eggli]

Hi everyone,

Maurice, this is a beautiful story and you are defenitely at the right place, if you want to specialize. This is exactly the mentality we need!
So be welcome here.

Regarding your initial question, I made some observations that might be relevant.
I am running 3 paro tanks with black water of ec around 10 microsiemens/cm and ph around 5.
Also, I run another “normal” tank with a ph around 6.5 to 7 with pterophyllum scalare and some catfish (L333). In both tanks, I use catappa leaves to add the beneficial substances.
I always observed that the leaves in the normal tank vanished really quickly after only a matter of weeks. In the park tanks, this takes much longer. Sometimes the leaves are still intact after a month or so. Then they start to get muddy and slowly dissolve. If there is too much of a biotilm on them, I put them to the compost. If not I leave them. I usually thought of these differences as being caused by the L333 that would eat part of the leaves. I needed about twice the amount of leaves in the normal tank as opposed to the paros.
Now, sadly the L333 died probably because of their age. I had gotten them from a private breeder who sold me his old pairs. During the few months when I did not have any Catfish in my tank, I observed the same phenomenon. Actually, I feel the leaves are even quicker dissolved. I think that the L333 always fed on the biofilm on the leaves rather than the leave substance itself. So as a conclusion I would say that yes, the bacteria developpment slows rapidly in a lower oh environment but there are still bacteria active.

[Thomas Beu]

Hi Maurice,
did you ever heard from Archaea, in former times labeled as Archebacteria? These are single-celled microorganisms like bacteria, but standing in their own domain besides the domains of bacteria and eukaryota (all multi-cellular creatures like animals or plants). In spite of many similarities with bacteria, archaea provide a phylogenetical older group with big structural differences to bacteria like completely other cellular membranes for example. Archaeae are often specialized to very harsh conditions like high temperatures (up to 110°C), high concentrations of NaCl, and very high or low pH-values (down to nearly 0). Simultaneously, archaeae are to be found in all types of environments like deep sea, arctic conditions, deserts, all kind of soils, fresh water habitats and so on. Archaea are playing a very important role in the global chemical cycles of Carbon, Nitrogen and Sulfur. So, we can act on the assumption that these microorganisms are a vital part in the cycles of matter in blackwater-habitats and in blackwater-tanks too.
Besides that, some bacteria-species are specialized to grow under lower pH-values as well. One example is that the decomposition of leaf-litter in tropical peat-swamp forests under low pH-values is managed by bacteria (and surely archaea) (Yule and Gomez, 2009).
Thomas

[Benjamin Wilden]

Hey,

I think everyone pointed interesting aspects.

But what do we want? – We want acid water, no actually sterile water. The content of ions are important, but the density of bacteria also matter. Peter and others tested that before. So we use acid and tannins to reduce bacteria. Usually we don´t want black water because of its color.

So yes, bacteria are everywhere and able to live in way more habitats than fishes, but the peatbogs exist for a reason: the bacterial and fungal activity and degradation is reduced.

Back to the topic: I think there are a lot of parameter that influence the efficiency of your filter.
As long as the current is not too strong your filter wont harm your fishes. You will make your experiences and decide on your own whether a filter is good for your fishes.

@beutho: Have you any evidence that Archea have a significant impact to fish tanks? (I´d just like to know)

Best,
Bennie

[Jolanda Wisseborn]

I do use a filter for my peat and the flow is very slow. I also notice that the young fish I have do feed also from the existing bacteria or infusurien. I do not really measure my microsiemens of the water but see the water stays clear,the beechleaves I use stays very long in their natural shape.

It’s great Maurice you took also the jump, just read here a lot and try.

[Andy Love]

I thought I’d jump in here with some personal observations resulting from a (very!) amateur experiment. I may well have mentioned it previously in this forum and, if so, I apologise for the repetition. Nevertheless, the appearance of this thread allows me the opportunity to ‘bump’ it and perhaps to bring it to the attention of new readers. So …

In the Spring of 2011 I found myself with a 12-litre tank which had previously housed some shrimp and a few baby Ancistrus. They had all been evicted some four or five months before and I had kept this little tank ‘running’ in the interim with its heater and air-driven sponge filter. It was unlit apart from ambient light. The only visible signs of life had been some moss and a few Malaysian Trumpet Snails. Other than topping up with water to counter evaporation loss, I had paid the tank no attention at all.

Eventually the time came when I needed to use the tank (I noted that its pH was 8.04 at this point). Given all the facts about aquarium nitrification that I had come to understand from an appreciable amount of reading of authoritative sources, the filter surely must have ‘died’. So I set about recycling it using my favoured variation of the ‘fishless cycle’ method (it involves adding both ammonia and nitrite). To my astonishment, the filter began working immediately. I have just found my notes from the time – I see it was in March 2011 – and, at the risk of boring you somewhat, can extract some detail from them.

I read there that I had decided to test to see if the filter would make any effort at nitrification and, further, that I would start by adding nitrite alone. I guessed (rather generously) at the amount of nitrite that the assembly of previous occupants might have produced via ammonia oxidation. As a result of that calculation, I added nitrite to an in-tank concentration of approximately 0.9mg/l at 1330hrs on 27th March 2011.

I hadn’t expected that anything would happen and at that stage I thought I might test after 24 hours or so. However, for some reason I tested at 1630 the same day : the in-tank concentration of nitrite measured approximately 0.4mg/l. By 0130, i.e. 12 hours after inoculation, nitrite was undetectable. I repeated the test with a greater concentration of nitrite and this, too, was oxidised in quick time.

I then ‘reset’ the tank with a large water-change and tested for any ammonia-oxidising activity : I used the Seachem test kit, which allows both unionised and ionised ammonia to be estimated. I began with an in-tank concentration of approximately 0.31mg/l ; unionised ammonia was undetectable nine hours later. I followed this by adding ammonia to an in-tank concentration of 4mg/l ; a zero for unionised ammonia was achieved somewhere between 38 and 49 hours later.

I subsequently carried out other ammonia/nitrite procedures on this tank but even at this early stage my suspicions were aroused that all I had learned so far about nitrifying bacteria was not necessarily true : without ‘food’ (so the texts had said) the bacteria would die off quickly – some sources said that this would happen in a matter of hours.

To double-check I removed the filter media, packed it in a bottle of fresh water and posted it to someone who had volunteered to help out, in Yorkshire. Her instructions were to remove the cap from the bottle, keep it unmolested for a few days and then send it back to me. In the meantime I had once again ‘reset’ the filterless tank with water-changes. When the filter media arrived back, I reinstalled it in the tank and repeated the ammonia/nitrite dosing and testing : there was no significant difference compared with the results achieved prior to the filter media’s ‘holiday’. [In retrospect I should have sterilised the tank in the absence of its media ; but even without sterilisation, I reason that I should have been able to detect some difference in nitrification ability]

I had read claims from some hobbyists that nitrifying bacteria are capable of dormancy ; and from rather more trustworthy sources that nitrifying bacteria are incapable of encysting and therefore are incapable of dormancy. If the latter were correct (I thought) then agents other than nitrosomonas/nictrobacter-type organisms must be responsible for nitrification in my little tank.

I needed to use the tank but wanted to keep the filter media as it was. So I moved it to a 15-litre bucket which I equipped with a heater and airline. Over the year (and more) that followed I subjected the media to a wide range of environments. I played about with inter alia, with temperature, pH, ammonia/nitrite concentrations, mineral concentrations etc. : its nitrification capabilities remained. The only condition I found that would reliably shut it down was when pH fell to around 3.4 (as measured by my meter – I know that this could be an indicative, rather than an absolute value!). To summarise : it became absolutely clear that whatever was doing the nitrification wasn’t behaving like the bacteria that authoritative authors had been writing about, inclusive of the admirable Tim Hovanec.

I was both baffled and intrigued ; I carried on through the Summer reading all that I could find and vaguely understand (I’m not a scientist!) about nitrifying bacteria, but nothing surfaced that helped . Then in October, idly surfing the ‘net using my set of keywords, I happened upon a paper that appeared to offer an explanation. It was this one (if the link doesn’t work, search under its title: “Aquarium Nitrification Revisited”. You may have to click on ‘Article’ if the abstract or full text doesn’t appear straight away).

Briefly : a Canadian team had been looking for environments in which to study archaea. Among the environments considered were aquaria, both freshwater and marine. Using Polymerase Chain Reaction analysis they were able to determine that in a significant proportion of the aquaria studied, genetic components from ammonia-oxidising archaea (AOA) far outnumbered those from ammonia-oxidising bacteria (AOB). In some aquaria, no ammonia-oxidising bacteria seemed to be present at all. Conditions which select for AOA include low nutrient concentration (i.e. low ammonia) and low pH.

Eventually, I plucked up the courage to email one of the authors (Josh Neufeld) and outlined what I had been doing. He agreed that my observations were consistent with nitrification by archaea in my tank/bucket. As an aside, I followed up with a tsunami of questions to Dr. Neufeld about the nature and behaviour of AOA, looking to compare and contrast with AOB : from memory, of my twenty questions he was able to answer just one of them with certainty, so recent was the concept of AOA at the time. Maybe more is known now – if anyone reading this follows it up and discovers (or already knows of) new and relevant information, I’d love to hear about it.

Sorry about the length of the above but I hope it has been of interest.

[Benjamin Wilden]

Hey,

thank you Vale! The paper is quite interesting and indeed an answer to my question above.

I think little experiments like yours are fun, although I do not really understand what your result is 😉

In my understanding your filter worked under differnt conditions, is that basicly it?

It is too bad that the canadians did not test aquariums with low pH. But it is really good to know. I will search for more, when I´m next time in the Univertity libary.

Best,
Bennie

[Jolanda Wisseborn]

Thank you Vale, 😉 also from me. It’s quiet an interesting paper to read although this kind of English was hard to figure out :huh:
I shure hope this will be tested some day with low ph aquaria, like Bennie mennaged.
Would really like to find out if leaves and so on, have influence on everything in a Aqua with low ph and osmose water. I’m testing my nitrate and nitriet every week, but they are all zero. Gonna try to measure my microsiemens, got a big testcase of Sera, but don’t know if it’s in there. Hmmmm interesting 😳

[Benjamin Wilden]

Hey,
the influence of leaves are mostly known. Just google it and you will find a lot. I usually don´t measure my water for nutrients. Maybe I should sometimes. But that testcase (same as yours) is very inaccurate. For the conductance you will need a divice or calculate it with your gh and kh values. But that is indeed very bad on the basis of your testkit.

Best,
Bennie

[Author]

Posts