|
My name is David Farquart. I am president and chief spokesperson for the IAANB. (International Association for the Advancement of Nitrifying Bacteria).
Our mission is to seek to address ( and seek redress for) the blatant bias and discrimination the N.B. regularly and systematically experiences at the hands of the aquaponics community, through promoting dialogue, education, enlightenment, and research.
I realise that many will respond defensively, and with denial. No one likes to have their biases and prejudices pointed out to them. We in the IAANB have to constantly remind ourselves that many are blind to that which is so obvious to us: once you open your eyes, it is SO obvious. Think not? Read on!
Starting at the beginning, lets look at one of the most egregious examples of mistreatment of NB by the aquaponics community. When “newbies” or neophytes to aq first start their indoctrination, they read or are told
“FISH are the heart of any aquaponics system.”
REALLY?!! Let us look at this, objectively and in detail.
Most aq systems, especially backyard systems, have what engineers call “irreducible complexity”. This simply means a system which has been reduced as far as possible, while still being able to function; in other words, EVERY remaining element is ESSENTIAL. Take any element away, and the system stops working.
So, of course the fish are vital to the system, as are the plants, the NITRIFYING BACTERIA, and the various elements of hardware. What is it that makes the FISH the “heart” of the system?
Fish ARE the major way we operators have input into the system, via fishfood, also the major ongoing expense for an aq system. In addition, they are one of the major routes we use for harvesting from the system. But, is that enough to justify elevating them with this title, as “heart” of the system?
We in IAANB say “NO!”
Lets look at our aq system as an ecological system: the role of the fish is to process the fish food, and produce protein, (as in yum,yum) and actually ( the more vital role for the integrity of the system) to convert the fish food into what is commonly referred to as “fp”, or fish poop. It is generally understood that this politically incorrect term includes fish excrement, fish urine and uneaten fish food. Thats the contribution of fish, to the system.
They will continue to produce fp until it reaches toxic levels, killing the fish.
Now, this fp is NOT fertiliser! Other than certain plants like duckweed and water hyacinths, the plants we grow CAN NOT use this fp to further their growth so THEY would die. In addition, since they can not remove it from the system, to keep the level of fp from becoming toxic to the fish, and THEY would die.
The contribution of the NB is to process this BACTERIA FOOD (the preferred, politically correct term for what many refer to as “fp”) converting it to fertiliser which the plants can then both utilise, and remove from the system to the benefit of the fish. The NB are the BRIDGE between the fish and the plants, establishing and maintaining the synergistic relationship between plants and fish.
Viewed this way, we in the IAANB feel that it is obvious that NB deserve the recognition as being the HEART of any aq system. As egregious as this mis-statement is, “FISH are the heart of any ap system”, it is not simply one of many clear examples of the blatant discrimination NB endures. Coming as it does early on in the indoctrination of any “newbie” it establishes this bias and prejudice at the outset.
Let us look at some additional examples of the slights and prejudices NB,are forced to suffer, shall we?
Scroll or click back to the main “topic page” for this forum. How many topics do we see devoted to fish? Fish species, fish food, fish problems and fish recipes.
And we have whole topics devoted to various aspects of plants, similarly.
Now, look for topic pages devoted to Nitrifying Bacteria,....keep looking.
Yes, you will find individual posts, and even threads about NB, but they are not viewed as important enough to merit their own page, despite the role they play?
Again, we in the IAANB maintain this is a community wide prejudice, and you will see this clear bias reflected in ANY aq forum, as well as most books written on aq.
Reader please note: I recognise there are many individual posts and threads ON NB, and so SOME members of the community ARE giving more attention and respect to NB; prime candidates for recruitment to our cause!
Look at it on a more personal level; pick your timeframe, (day,week etc.)
How much of your time, attention, thinking and efforts have focused on aquaponics? Now, how much of that was focused on NITRIFYING BACTERIA, and how much on other aspects of the system?
Actions speak louder than words. Let us now look at how this bias is reflected in our actions in the design and operation of our systems.
Every living species have “thrive conditions”; optimal conditions under which they not only live, but thrive and reproduce, grow rapid and healthy, etc.
Related to this is the “heartiness” of the species, which is its ability to survive in less than ideal conditions.
When designing our systems, we research the thrive conditions of the various FISH species appropriate for aq, to determine which is most appropriate for our system, weather, etc. (Be honest, your first consideration was probably FISH, right? See how insidiously this “FISH are the heart of any aq system” effects your thinking and actions?)
We then design the system to provide these thrive conditions for the fish.
We obtain fish food which has been made specifically to not only the species, but to the maturity of the fish, (flakes for fingerlings/fry, and pellets for larger).
We also design our system to provide thrive conditions for the various plants we intend to grow, taking into acct weather/temp, unless we have a greenhouse, and “zone”, etc. We add chelated iron, compost tea, etc. all to “cater” to the plants, doing everything we can to create thrive conditions for them.
In order to demonstrate, let us imagine Tom is going to set up an aq system.
He calls the fish shop, and says “I want some fish; do not CARE what kind. Do not care what species, just give me some fish.
Similarly, he calls up the seed store, and says “Send me some seeds. Do not care what kind;herbs,fruits, etc. Doesnt matter.
Whats more, when its time to feed his fish, he just drops a 1 kilo solid brick of generic “fish food” in his fishtank; if they get hungry, they will eat, right?
THIS is, for the most part, the way we treat NB. We do not KNOW what specie or species of NB are populating our systems, or what THEIR thrive conditions are, and simply kind of hope, or take it on faith that they will show up and do their job.
Now let us address the political correctness of “Bacteria Food”, (BF), as opposed to the derogatory FP.
As stated earlier, we rely on fish food which has been specifically formulated, both in content and form, to be ideal for our fish. Some even supplement with additional “treats”, expending effort to grow or raise duckweed, bsfl, etc. In short, we focus a a lot of our time,attention and focus on feeding our fish.
We do NOT simply chuck a solid kilo block of food in the ft. And yet, isn”t that how we treat the neglected NB?
Fishfood is not only formulated for species, but for maturity (flakes or pellets), because of mouth size. Granted, bacteria do not have mouths: they assimilate their food by surface area. Never the less, pumping unprocessed fish tank water, laden with big (to the bacteria) chunks of Bacteria food into the grow bed is equivalent, and a direct result of thinking of it as fish poop
rather than thinking of it as Bacteria FOOD.
As an alternative, how might we address Bacteria food, in a way commesurate with the way we do fish food?
Bacteria ingest food thru surface area. If the discharge water from our fishtank went to a swirl or rff, to separate the solids, then to a modified macerator pump, which chopped up the chunks into much smaller pieces, the surface area would be greatly increased. The ideal we would strive for, (even if not succeeding full) would be to have all the solids so fine the were “in suspension”. This may require adding back in, after the macerator, some additional clarified water, to thin the mixture, before flowing it on to the grow beds.
And so, of coarse we get to the issue of research.With fish, and plants, we KNOW the “thrive conditions” the heartiness, compatibility. It is this knowledge which enables us to design our systems to cater to the fish, and the plants.
Not so, with NB. We are told dozens have been identified, but hundreds may exist.
Certainly, with hundreds, or even dozens of NB, there are some that will be more and some less suitable for aq. For instance, there are NB that live around caulderas and hot springs, and their temp range makes them innapprpriate for aq.
IF the research were done to establish what the thrive conditions were, this alone would eliminate some, while showing others are good candidates for aq, but we would need more. Some NB may be more efficient at converting their FOOD into fertiliser than others, either by doing it faster, more completely, or use less dissolved oxygen. Some might bogart or sequester a nutrient, say zinc as an example, making it unavailable to the plants, or processing some nutrients into a non bioavalable form. These kinds of factors could be used to determine the specific NB most appropriate for our system, and so is research which is desperately needed.
Is the rampant bias against NB within the community a result of or a cause or contributing factor to the lack of research?
We have had many long discussions about this at IAANB.Many factors effect research, and a major one is finance. There ARE researchers doing work on NB, and specifically as related to aq. We applaud and champion their efforts! Ultimately, it is such research that will play a major role in addressing and correcting or eliminating this bias.
“But what GOOD would this research do, assuming it were undertaken.How might it change how we do aq, now?
It takes days, sometimes weeks to cycle a new system. IF we had this knowledge, and designed our system to provide thrive conditions (for NB, the way we do for fish and plants) it might only take hours.
In addition to the initial cycling at start up, it is recognised there is a period of maturing a sytem. Start with leaf plants, herbs and lettuce, and wait until the system matures before trying fruiting plants like strawberries or tomatoes.No one knows why, but it may well have to do with NB.Some people seem to have little problem with fruiting plants, others, despite allowing the system to mature, have no luck.
I should think it highly likely that there are some NB that are better for fruiting plants than others.
It is entirely possible that many of the problems we are thinking of as “fish problems” or “plant problems” are actually NB PROBLEMS.
“So what. Even if we knew the thrive conditions, and suitability of the various species of NB, its not like we have control over it.”
No, but we COULD have.
Firstly, if we had this knowledge, establishing thrive conditions for the desirable bacteria should give them a leg up on populating our system. Additionally, once we establish the thrive conditions AND SUITABILITY FOR OUR SYSTEM, it should be possible to culture pure (no other bacteria) cultures. Then, when beginning to cycle, we add the ammonia, allow it to distribute thru the system, and ensuring we have thrive conditions for our desirable bacteria, we add our cultured sample.By the time other, less desirable NB enter the system, they find A) an inhospitable environment, or at least one less likely to have their thrive conditions, and B) more importantly no surface area to populate, as it is all occupied by our selected, desirable bacteria. Its important to understand we are talking about DOMINANT bacteria.
Anything new seems,...strange. I am sure the idea of specifically selecting the most suitable NB, and then designing the system taking into account its thrive conditions, thinking of “fp” as Bacteria food, and treating it accordingly, may strike some as bizarre. Even though its only giving equality, nurturing the NB the SAME way we do fish and plants.
There is a company doing the same thing with mycelium i.e mold/fungus.One of the major differences between growing in dirt and growing in aq, is that dirt has fungus, which plays a vital role. This is the topic of a later post, but the point. This company either DID the research, or built on the work of others.They identified a # of strains which are beneficial for growing plants, cultured pure samples, and sell them to gardeners and commercisl grow operations.This company, or one like it, may be motivated to do the research needed, so to then sell cultures of desirable NB, thereby providing the financial incentive to do the research.
I know, yet another expense for aq!
Unfortunately, most research has to be funded.
Note one of the few research papers on NB, specifically as applies to aq, (and yes referenced on this forum).Researchers took a sample of the biofilm from an active aq system to analyse. They found an “outer” layer i.e. closest to the flowing water, and an inner layer, adhering to the solid surface. The outer layer was an aerobic bacteria, which converted ammonia to Nitrate. The inner layer was an ANaerobic bacteria, which converted Nitrate to Nitrite.
So, the notion that SEEMS to predominate, that anaerobic bacteria are undesirable unless in an off-line mineralisation tank, and that we want to avoid anaerobic bacteria in our systems, MAY be open to re-evaluation?
In summation, we at IAANB will continue to speak out against injustice, and urge equal treatment for NB. Initially, we are focusing on urging that all give credit where due, and recognise that NB are the heart of any aq system. In addition, please refer to Bacteria food as that, rather than the derogatory fp.
I WOULD, at this point urge those interested to consider joining the IAANB, to take up the fight for equal treatment for NB, etc. except that there IS no such organisation, I made it up.Probably someone named David Farquart, but I made that up, too.Not sure what you call this, something like parody, or satire, except not really trying for humor. Just using this notion of equality and prejudice, which is the part I was “joking” about, to try to make some serious points. Some will not read this far, and will be outraged and offended. Some, for whom equal rights among humans is important will be offended that i am transposing the same kinds of arguments, for lowly bacteria. Well, all I can say to them (on behalf of David and IAANB) is thank you for making my point.
Anyway, my nom de plume on this forum is Jimbo, and I am in NW Arizona, USA.
|
Backyard Aquaponics
