Ghost feeding is a myth perpetuated only in web forums

[brandon429]

edits were made just now on 1st post to cover this isn't about ghost feeding to start a cycle, I noticed a few readers saw it that way so far.

thread is about what actions from the aquarist if any are required to keep beneficial bacteria fully functional, by measure of ammonia oxidation, after primary bioloads are reduced or removed and the tank was cycled. As Aaron pointed out, even freshly cycled tanks are worth consideration here.

When I saw the term 'ghost feeding' over the years in forums, it was in context of preserving the filter, at the risk of not preserving it without feeding.

The edit was to make sure we know we are talking about established filter systems wherever the locus of that filter may be (in a canister, rocks, sand etc)

 

[dbrewsky]

This is known science and a perfect example is in brewing beer. Yeast, not a bacteria, but lives a similar life-cycle is pitched into a wort(un-fermented beer consisting of various types of sugar compounds) and then eats these sugars as "food". This then produces the by products of co2 and alcohol and reduces the sweetness of the wort as a product of this cycle. During this process the yeast eat the sugar and multiply to a point where they essentially run out of food and the fermentation process is completed.

If I were to pitch a teaspoon of yeast into a 5 gallon container of wort, it would take 2-3 days for the peak of the fermentation to happen and extend the fermentation process. This is similar to a new tank with a smaller population of bacteria and adding 5 fish. The bacteria in this case will begin to eat the "food" (ammonia) but will not be able to handle the much higher amount of ammonia since the introduction of this food. This causes a delay in the nitrogen cycle processing harmful ammonia, while the bacteria reproduce to handle the excess in ammonia. This delay is ultimately harmful to the health of our organisms.

On the other hand, if i were to build a starter culture by taking that same tablespoon of yeast, adding it to a quart of wort"food" and give it 48 hours to eat and reproduce, and then add this culture to the same 5-gallon container of wort, I would see peak fermentation within 24 hours and the whole process would be completed in a much shorter time, leaving me some tasty beer. This is because the yeast population is appropriately scaled to meet the "food" demand of the wort before fermentation is attempted.

This process is what "ghost feeding" is achieving. It provides a source of nitrogen as it decomposes, providing food for a bacteria population to assist in building a substantial enough population to support larger organisms, such as fish.

If you were to install a seneye or test ammonia with this theory, with a so called "sterile" quarantine and a fish vs a quarantine which has been cycled and ghost feed for two weeks prior to adding a fish, I think you would find your claim false.

Everything you are basing your claims are off are known, and well supported science. There are real scientists, with real experiments, and evidence that have proven these concepts time and time again. There are medical advances and huge industries that rely on these principles. Why argue that these concepts do not apply to an aquarium? I am far from a scientist, but if this concept is so common sense that I can correlate it with drinking beer, then there is something to be said here.

 

[reeferfoxx]

edits were made just now on 1st post to cover this isn't about ghost feeding to start a cycle, I noticed a few readers saw it that way so far.

thread is about what actions from the aquarist if any are required to keep beneficial bacteria fully functional, by measure of ammonia oxidation, after primary bioloads are reduced or removed and the tank was cycled. As Aaron pointed out, even freshly cycled tanks are worth consideration here.

When I saw the term 'ghost feeding' over the years in forums, it was in context of preserving the filter, at the risk of not preserving it without feeding.

The edit was to make sure we know we are talking about established filter systems wherever the locus of that filter may be (in a canister, rocks, sand etc)

Edits can be made but the point still stands that ghost feeding isn't a myth. It still has a purpose. I would like to see links to forum posts where claims are being made to better as.sess the "myth". Further more, corrections should have been pointed out in those forum posts. Supplying a tank with nutrients is no myth and it does have cause and effect.

 

[SciGuy2]

David P. has knocked this topic out of the park, IMO.

I might be somewhat biased, though. It appears that David P. and I have some similarity in background. My work the last 10 years has been in determining the effectiveness of municipal wastewater treatment systems.

 

[brandon429]

Reefer and I cannot agree it's ok. I'm more convinced now than ever it's a myth, nothing was ever posted to sway, and we got straight confirmation here of not feeding+ biofilter preserved, and tested

I realize I didn't post formal links, only large tank work ones where we predict what bac do, and if they didn't sway I'm OK there, that work will continue into many many pages

When a biofilter shows ppm free ammonia reduction, you can remove the bioloading it was adjusted to, not provide anything, and it still functions when same bioload is reintroduced, we didn't have to feed during the interim, the notion we keep bac alive and without us they die is to not factor myriad alternate support options that never were called out by any detractors anyway.

 

[reeferfoxx]

Reefer and I cannot agree it's ok. I'm more convinced now than ever it's a myth, nothing was ever posted to sway, and we got straight confirmation here of not feeding+ biofilter preserved, and tested

I realize I didn't post formal links, only large tank work ones where we predict what bac do, and if they didn't sway I'm OK there, that work will continue into many many pages

Maybe to say forum posts suggest it's detrimental to ghost feed to preserve BB is the myth rather than just ghost feeding being a myth?

 

[brandon429]

but its not detrimental imo, its the same as an overfeeding event which we all do. this was just to highlight misconceptions we have about bacteria, some nerding I never thought it would harm a tank.

I don't mind editing for clarity for sure so we can keep carving...my main challenge to the masses was to alter their thought that the downscaling that occurs with total feed stoppage would be measurable considering the alt feed sources discussed and the working surface area at hand, it wont be measurable, the reinstated bioloading will just continue as if it was never taken away

it wont start back at .25 unless we use api

 

[david p.]

you can remove the bioloading it was adjusted to, not provide anything, and it still functions when same bioload is reintroduced

The performance will have decrease because food source was reduce. It does not fall to zero BB (BB - bioburden or bacterial population). Older system will be more resilient, because it take time to deplete or make N a rate limiting factor. Think at all organism tha tlives in your LR, think at the sand bed full of gunk. If you wait a long enough time, reintrocing fish with a significant biolad vs your system capability, it can be an issue.

, we didn't have to feed during the interim, the notion we keep bac alive and without us they die is to not factor myriad alternate support options that never were called out by any detractors anyway.

You an stop feeding, BB will feed on what's remianing in the tank. but at some point the 'leftovers' will become less available to the BB, that's when population will decrease. Population will stabilize based on available nutrient.

Maybe to say forum posts suggest it's detrimental to ghost feed to preserve BB is the myth rather than just ghost feeding being a myth?

Feeding to presever BB is a fact. if you remove one food source, population will change. Will it have an impact ? probably that in most scenarios in our aquariums we will face impact will be minimal.
the exemple i could see, you go fallow for 72 days after Ich or other disease, you have fully stock tank (number of fish & size ratio vs tank volume)and many of them are pretty large (huge bioload), you have your biopellet reactor.
I would be curious how the reactor and system would react to reintroduced all at once, i'm pretty sure it could be detrimental to the fish and potentially to the system. The system will go through a mini-cycle, lag phase, cell growth - palteau (equilibrium).

Again, i'm pretty new to reefing, but i see strong parallel to what i do. I'm probably off on certain aspect of reef keeping, but bacteria are bacteria regardless if it's in an aquarium or not

 

[dbrewsky]

@brandon429 - Since you are the OP, why not take lead and design some experiments around this concept and provide those experiments, their process, and end data? That way, when ghost feeding is questioned in the future, you can be the expert on this information and help to educate others?

 

[brandon429]

Dbrew
per the big tank work threads linked, im informing here how we get those results and how the premise of this thread is a direct tie to them. Those threads are about predicting what bac will do in a given event, and then several tanks confirming the outcome. some of the direct tie ins to here, and the claimed fragile nature of bacteria, were that we couldn't replace an old sandbed and avoid a cycle, since those bacteria would be removed (again calls into play working surface area of the live rock for those threads)


I wanted to show how no formal links back up the need to preserve a filter, and how we have to consider constant input from other sources as feed for them, no link provided for the null claim mentioned those so far/


its the same line of logic to state that not feeding bac, already getting perpetual feed, will kill them off, and we'll measure free ammonia due to that.

When bigdog confirmed three years, no feeding, still oxidizing, that's the supporting claim I don't need to make the experiment. Im totally ok if no one believes my claim, but it was also neat to show the best links that could be found to support the null claim weren't really tied to my claims. we can do what we do to tanks, rip them apart without cycles, because bac are sooooo predictable and within that realm, we know that once set the bac levels are fine without our help, even for the 80 days fallow so common in fish disease threads.

David P I had a little detraction to this part of your writing:
"You an stop feeding, BB will feed on what's remianing in the tank. but at some point the 'leftovers' will become less available to the BB, that's when population will decrease. Population will stabilize based on available nutrient."

to me that leaves out the constant *input* from alt feed sources not factored, not that the organics in the tank were a finite source. They're being added to Im sure you know, even if not by our hand... you can leave the massive established surface area unfed for 3 years we see prior, and still pass a digest test. How long they'll go is relative to contamination rates and consumption rates, it might never downscale as long as hydrated, never. big dogs tank would have passed a digestion test after 10 years just the same.

 

[Squid]

Everytime I've left my qt/frag tanks fallow without feeding for a few months I would have to cycle it all over again when I wanted to add something.


"did anyone read my sand rinse thead? that was reef heresy till we got to six pages.

everyone was just sure you couldn't rinse a sandbed and it still conduct nitrification..."

Was any of those tests done with cycled tanks that had only sand and water or was there rock present?

 

[brandon429]

Your arrangement of low surface area was covered in my first post though I'd enjoy seeing pics of your setup that had exactly only the amount of surface area to neutralize frag waste with none to spare

I believe a frag rack only setup could do that but again that's been factored. If you have a skimmer or any filtration on there that would be confounding

Mine were live rock inclusions and I'd be curious to know what test kit indicated your inability to oxidize after bioload changes

Your example calls into play adding bioload into a system not using extra surface area (or you wouldn't be having to recycle upwards)... To be matched for this thread you'd have to remove the frags, then put them back without interim feeding mos later, then get the spike accurately measured--but you used adding bioload as an example.

 

[Squid]

Your arrangement of low surface area was covered in my first post though I'd enjoy seeing pics of your setup that had exactly only the amount of surface area to neutralize frag waste with nine to spare

What do you know of my arrangement of surface area? Your assuming and we all know what happens when you assume..... also, can you answer my question in regards to your sand cleaning tests?

 

[brandon429]

Why not read the threads to see, we worked hard to get em all detailed... Yes they're live rock and I edited above to make your example fit better here

They're buried in previous pages here



You described a low surface area system by inference

Either that, or you are using API..cant wait to see how far off my guess was.

Any system using surface area assistance... Sand, rocks or a filter, takes on bioload additions just fine. Take my pico for example, ten years no fish.

I can add gobies at anytime with no system impact, though the filter is set to no fish (my tank is one gallon, so this is a massive increase in bioload)

Per the false claims, id have to up cycle to get there, but that's false. My system or any average high surface area system can easy take more bioloading without inability to handle. Anything reasonable... I'm not claiming 200 fish added won't spike. This is why our systems don't crash when we overfeed lightly...if bac were as fragile as 95% see them posting here, a single overfeed event could wipe the whole tank.

Though the title is about ghost feeding, the work we already do in tanks are inversions of what we're talking about here. I didn't have to cycle my tank upwards to get it ready for more fish, because of the surface area Ive provided, in excess of what uses it already. My tank can instantly take on a higher, or lesser bioload, and no microbiologist here would be able to enumerate that change off the massive surface area still left running.

If they tried to plate and count/enumerate my total system bacteria off a no fish setup or a fish setup, they'll get the same readings per area sampled for active colonies. Natural mechanisms control the colony densities not the changes in bioloading, as 95% are so sure of so far.

 

[Sm51498]

to me that leaves out the constant *input* from alt feed sources not factored

You do understand that these inputs occur when you are feeding the tank too? you have to consider TOTAL nutrient input. As it has been said ad nauseum, bacteria populations find an equilibrium point with the TOTAL nutrient input. so lower amount of input, LOWER equilibrium point. The fact that you consistently ignore this is a giant hole in your arguments.

I don't need to make the experiment

You have a lot of confidence in a claim backed up 100% by anecdote and guess. you have no data. you can't support your claim, you might as well say aliens will come and feed the bacteria for you. There is precisely as much evidence for that alternate theory as your theory (which btw violates the second law of thermodynamics, but lets ignore basic physics while we ignore basic biology)

neat to show the best links that could be found to support

you understand that the principles behind "ghost feeding" are based on simple well understood peer reviewed facts of biology? so when people post links supporting ghost feeding it is to simple well understood peer reviewed principles of biology. This is simple stuff.

What concerns me here is not that you believe something wrong. I am concerned someone is going to come along, believe that somehow bacteria magically just keep living without sufficient food and end up killing fish. questioning orthodox beliefs is fine, good and healthy. Doing it with literally no data is dangerous.

Maybe you are right and if you are, great but at some point you have to back up assertion with experimental data to demonstrate your assertions.

 

[Squid]

Why not read the threads to see, we worked hard to get em all detailed.

I read the thread and saw no test had been some on a tank without live rock present hence my question.

Yes they're live rock

So how can you claim that sand maintains its nitrifying ablilities after a wash when you are introducing it back into a tank with liverock containing its own bacterial populations and nitrifying abilities. You did not remove the variable of live rock so how are you to know that it isnt the large populations in the live rock preventing a cycle and not the sand?

 

[brandon429]

Sm514



we have supporting claims here already, you are ignoring them. if big dog hadn't posted, you'd be ultra-sure this thread was wrong.


just as we predict what moving and parting out tanks will do, and leaving them drained, all manner of cycle control, do you really think all of the sudden we cant state what happens when you stop feeding a high surface area system for a few mos or years? our prediction ability ends right there? ok./



For both of you, how does Big Dogs claim settle with your claims? his is the direct example im claiming I don't need to reproduce, I already know it works that way/

Squid if you have an ultra low surface area tank, an abnormal setup, then that matches my statements it doesn't refute them. The fact we are working with sand and rocks is 100% relevant to this thread, where you are heading is way off course.

Lets see your thread for your tank. if you are using skimming or any filtration at all, above a glass box with only powerheads and a frag rack, then we'll have something to debate.

 

[Squid]

I never described a low surface area system so sorry just another one of your false claims. My frag/qt tanks had sand beds lots of live rock and hob filters so plenty of surface area. For Big Dogs claims? Good on him but I have had the exact opposite experience yet you choose to discredit my anecdote. You only accept what others are telling you when it's in your favor. Stop being biased. As for the sand, yup you proved what I thought so thanks on that

 

[WilRams]

Who is this we you always speak of?

 

[brandon429]

Squid


You didn't have to recycle for typical additions, but claiming that helps your stance, agreed. I listed a common testing confound that could be at play but I'm sure that won't apply either.

Can you comment on what big dog wrote and how that ties in?

I showed how my system goes from no fish to fish without a recycle, opposite of your claim, I've done it to my tank already.

Will
Do you have something insightful to add regarding any aspect of bacteria you've noted? lead with that if so I'd like to see