The Use of Probiotics in Aquaculture

[RD.]

I concur with Tom.


And ShadowStryder ......... I have a friend in town that has also been using the same product as I have for the past few months (Septobac), and he keeps Leo rays, Asian aros, dats, etc and has had no issues with any of his fish. He also has numerous wild caught fancy plecos in his tanks.

He has several $K invested in just his Asian aros.

 

[Miguel]

I use the "european " version, off the shelf that is easily available here, looks like Neil's photo, and after a couple of weeks applying it in less valuable stock, started using it in every tank.

My asian aros are not with me, at the moment, but i would not hesitate to use it.

One other thing: the probiotics i use are bought in the pharmacy and have nothing to do with the septic tank product.

I use the two products at the same time.

Probiotics always in the water column, and septic tank bacteriae in tank or, wher tanks have sumps in the sumps.

 

[ShadowStryder]

I concur with Tom.


And ShadowStryder ......... I have a friend in town that has also been using the same product as I have for the past few months (Septobac), and he keeps Leo rays, Asian aros, dats, etc and has had no issues with any of his fish. He also has numerous wild caught fancy plecos in his tanks.

He has several $K invested in just his Asian aros.

Thanks RD, what I was hoping to hear.

 

[Oddball]

I've had some success with using Rid-X in a 300gal that's been notorious for bouts of septicemia. Not only have the current residents of tetras not displayed symptoms in the 10 months they've been in the tank, the tanks usual accumulation of solids in the substrate and filter have reduced to trace levels.
Previously, I had bleached the tank and filter in efforts of eradicating the Septicemia bacteria. However, the bacteria always returned within a few months. It's likely the bacteria either survived in areas missed by the bleach or encysted (a form of stasis) until the environment became habitable for them once more. The 3 month delay in seeing symptoms in the fish is probably the amount of time needed for the bacteria to reach a population level sufficient enough to displace beneficial bacteria and begin adversely affecting the fish.
I'm now using septic treatment in all of my tanks.

 

[petspoiler]

very intriguing.

 

[RD.]

And just to prove that bacteria in a bottle with a fancy pet store label may not always be what they are cracked up to be, in the following study performed in 2008 and published in the Canadian Journal of Microbiology, researchers found some rather alarming evidence of potential pathogenic bacteria in a product marketed by one of the aquatic industry giants, Hagen.

http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdf/10.1139/W08-015

Abstract

Two commercial products, Biotize and Cycle, containing bacteria as an active ingredient were characterized for species identification and batch-to-batch variation by denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE), total cellular fatty acid analysis (FAA), and a taxonomic DNA microarray. DGGE was useful at assessing the stability of consortia in different batches, and cluster analysis differentiated each batch even when only slight differences in species composition were observed. DGGE, FAA, and DNA microarray results indicated little batch-to-batch variation in Biotize and some batch variation in Cycle. The 3 methods agreed well with species identification in Biotize but generated conflicting results in the species composition of Cycle. This multi-method approach was useful in determining if the observed bacterial species present in the products matched the expected species composition

Forty-two different bacterial isolates were obtained from Cycle through nonspecific plating. FAA identified 21 different isolates (Table 3), including 7 Bacillus species, 3 Mycobacterium species, 5 Pseudomonas species, Anthrobacter viscosus, Brevibacillus parabrevis/B. megaterium, Panibacillus macerans, Rhodococcus sp., Rhodobacter sphaeroides, Sphyngopyxis macrogoltabida, Variovax paradoxus, and Xanthobacter flavus. All of bacterial species identified in Cycle were not listed by the manufacturer. Bacteria such as Nitrosomonas species were not detected due to the unsuitable culturing conditions used. Mycobacterium fortuitum, Mycobacterium chelonea, Mycobacterium smegmatis, B. cereus, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa identified in Cycle are considered opportunistic pathogens.




Fungal isolates were successfully cultured on RBC plates for all batches of Cycle. These isolates were identified as Rhizopus sp. and Aspergillus sp. The fungal and opportunistic pathogenic bacterial species identified in Cycle may have been contaminants based on the product’s label, claiming it contained only nonpathogenic bacteria. These species could have resulted from either impure product starter cultures, contamination in the manufacturing process, or nondefinitive taxonomic identifications.

I found that to be an interesting read, and thought others might as well.




Thanks for adding your experience with Rid-X to the discussion, Oddball.

 

[Miguel]

I never trusted this Cycle stuff, although I used it a lot of times.

My sentiment was that baceriae bottled for an unknown period of time was surely not in its best condition.

Never have I thought that I could possibly be introducing pathogens in my tanks, with it.

Never again shall I spend one cent in that kind of stuff.

 

[RD.]

Overall the pet industry does not have a very good track record when it comes to probiotics.

Tests that have been performed in the past on numerous pet & human food products by researchers at the Ontario Veterinary College (as well as other accredited institutions) that were sold as containing "probiotics" had results that were far from being impressive. Many of these organisms were improperly identified on the label, a large percentage of products did not contain the specified organisms, contained other species of organisms, did not contain the stated numbers of organisms, or if numbers were stated they did not guarantee that the stated number would be present at the time of expiry.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC340078/

"Because probiotics are considered food supplements, not drugs, there are no regulations regarding their use as supplements or food additives. Various studies have reported that quality control among probiotic supplements intended for human or animal use is poor, with a significant percentage of products either not containing the organisms stated on the label, not containing the numbers of organisms stated on the label, or containing additional species. "

"Overall, commercial pet foods that claim to contain probiotics appear to contain very low numbers of viable organisms, and often do not contain the species listed on the label. Whether this relates to improper addition of organisms during processing, failure to survive processing, or poor viability during storage is unclear. Regardless of the contents of any diets containing lactic acid bacteria or bacilli, it is debatable as to whether they should be considered to contain probiotics without demonstration of species-specific efficacy.

While production of a probiotic-containing diet should be possible, research must be performed to select bacterial species with beneficial in vitro and in vivo properties, and the ability to survive commercial processing and storage."

More info from the OVC can be found in the following link

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC340366/

IMO one of the most important portions of that paper is this:

Products should accurately list the organisms included, at least to the species level, state the number of viable organisms, and state at which point in time that number of organisms could be expected. Preferably, products guaranteeing a certain number of organisms at the time of expiry should be used.

I would like to think that the pet food industry as a whole has improved over the past decade, yet the two fish food companies currently advertising probiotics in their food do NOT list any number of bacteria at the time of expiry.

 

[petspoiler]

you guys who have used both Rid-x and Earthworm, have you seen any difference between the 2 powders dissolving in your tanks?
I put Rid-X in my 180, and the product remained visible, with both bits on substrate & cloudiness in water column.
the fish do enjoy eating it at first.
I waited several days & did a Lg water change. gonna add a lower dose & compare.
thanks.

 

[Miguel]

Has the cloudiness remained for long, Barbara?

You must have overdosed. In any case those solid particles have not shown to be any problem.

( i do not use those products. Use a french product, but it must be the same according to all descriptions )