To begin with, I quote from the articles listed below: "The method of intra-biofilm communication is called quorum sensing (QS)." and another quote: "Between the biofilm and the surrounding environment, there is a constant exchange of substances through various processes of adsorption and desorption of dissolved substances and colloids, absorption of ions, adhesion, cohesion, mechanical capture of undissolved substances. The polysaccharide matrix efficiently captures organic material that can be used in the absence of external sources and thus serves as a reserve for biofilm heterotrophs. These reserves make it possible to regulate the availability of organic substances and maintain the normal function of the biofilm. In addition to the intake of organic substances and nutrients, biofilms are also a place of retention and storage, e.g. heavy metals and other pollutants."
However, my theory is based on this scientific fact I quote:"Various physical factors, such as light, current speed or water temperature, primarily affect the structure, or thickness of biofilms. On the one hand, this has an impact on the rate of diffusion of solutions from the surrounding water into biofilms, and thus limits the rate of uptake of substances and nutrients, on the other hand, it can be e.g. effective protection against the toxicity of heavy metals."
I am convinced that, based on this information, biofilms within the internal biofilm communication are able to regulate the uptake of heavy metals into the biofilm by regulating the entry of water and its quality into the biofilm specifically in the inner part and affecting the surface capture by forming a smooth or porous structure. What happens in case of EI fertilization system, maximum plant growth with enough nutrients, lots of CO2 and large and frequent water changes. My question is why the big water changes when the plants have enough nutrients and light and CO2? The answer and the main cause is the accumulation of nutrients and the reduction of organic pollution in the water. My question: How is it possible that so much waste is created in the aquarium that without water changes the system collapses with a lot of algae? The answer is bacteria.
The system of adding microelements to the aquarium and fertilizing often at high levels of iron in the aquarium creates a problem for the bacteria, they close or significantly limit the entry of polluted water into the interior of the biofilm, probably to the level of maintaining the function of the biofilm. In this way, only a limited amount of nutrients and oxygen gets inside, and they actually only work at half and maybe even a third of their capabilities. This, in my opinion, is the main cause of EI's failure with BBA.
When I started fertilizing in my experiment here: microelements in the aquarium only in the evening and before lighting there was zero Fe in the water, after about a week of such regular addition, my Ph started to drop during lighting and by 0.3. The bacteria seem to have learned that the water is loaded with metals only in the evening, and during the day, when there is a lot of oxygen and the water is metal-free, the biofilms opened more, for a better intake of nutrients and organic waste. This is the only way to explain such a decrease in Ph, because the plants grow without problems.
Therefore, if we load large amounts of nutrients into the aquarium, we close the door to the decomposition of waste, because if the biofilms are constantly under fire from toxins, they will remain closed and slow down the operation - this is the logical outcome of the EI method. Of course, we can continue to function like this, but it is conditional on frequent maintenance, which replaces the sufficient activity of bacteria in the aquarium.
The response of biofilms to large amounts of toxins must be rapid, otherwise they would die and the system would collapse. The proof is this story Detritus Mulm here https://barrreport.com/threads/iron-toxicity.6494/, when with a rapid overdose of micronutrients in chelates, the processes of decomposition, not only nitrification but also decomposition, almost stopped, because after the problem with the overdose of microelements, ammonia rose slightly in aquarium. Biofilms closed even more. If they slowed down only nitrification, the fish would be gone, and if they slowed down only decomposition, ammonia would be at zero as always, so they had to slow down both groups - the entire biofilm. In chelates, metals are safe, of course, but they also break down and are not only in the water, but also trapped on the surfaces of biofilms. And what about the metal + DOC chelate, does it also remain only on the surface of the biofilm? Apparently yes, otherwise it would be a source of metals just like any other chelate and thus the chelate DOC + metal accumulates, because it is blocked by the bound metal for a greater intake of DOC by bacteria.
This theory of mine assumes that when nutrients /microelements/ are not supplied to the water in an uncoordinated manner, the success rate of waste decomposition will be higher. You will definitely write to me that these are my fantasies and sci-fi and I make observations with imprecise tests and ... Please make observations with laboratory tests in well-paid reputable laboratories and refute my claims, based on amateur tests and without funding.
Source used:
https://ziva.avcr.cz/files/ziva/pdf/mikrobialni-biofilmy-1-vsudypritomny-a-pritom-malo.pdf
https://ziva.avcr.cz/files/ziva/pdf/mikrobialni-biofilmy-2-vodni-prostredi.pdf
However, my theory is based on this scientific fact I quote:"Various physical factors, such as light, current speed or water temperature, primarily affect the structure, or thickness of biofilms. On the one hand, this has an impact on the rate of diffusion of solutions from the surrounding water into biofilms, and thus limits the rate of uptake of substances and nutrients, on the other hand, it can be e.g. effective protection against the toxicity of heavy metals."
I am convinced that, based on this information, biofilms within the internal biofilm communication are able to regulate the uptake of heavy metals into the biofilm by regulating the entry of water and its quality into the biofilm specifically in the inner part and affecting the surface capture by forming a smooth or porous structure. What happens in case of EI fertilization system, maximum plant growth with enough nutrients, lots of CO2 and large and frequent water changes. My question is why the big water changes when the plants have enough nutrients and light and CO2? The answer and the main cause is the accumulation of nutrients and the reduction of organic pollution in the water. My question: How is it possible that so much waste is created in the aquarium that without water changes the system collapses with a lot of algae? The answer is bacteria.
The system of adding microelements to the aquarium and fertilizing often at high levels of iron in the aquarium creates a problem for the bacteria, they close or significantly limit the entry of polluted water into the interior of the biofilm, probably to the level of maintaining the function of the biofilm. In this way, only a limited amount of nutrients and oxygen gets inside, and they actually only work at half and maybe even a third of their capabilities. This, in my opinion, is the main cause of EI's failure with BBA.
When I started fertilizing in my experiment here: microelements in the aquarium only in the evening and before lighting there was zero Fe in the water, after about a week of such regular addition, my Ph started to drop during lighting and by 0.3. The bacteria seem to have learned that the water is loaded with metals only in the evening, and during the day, when there is a lot of oxygen and the water is metal-free, the biofilms opened more, for a better intake of nutrients and organic waste. This is the only way to explain such a decrease in Ph, because the plants grow without problems.
Therefore, if we load large amounts of nutrients into the aquarium, we close the door to the decomposition of waste, because if the biofilms are constantly under fire from toxins, they will remain closed and slow down the operation - this is the logical outcome of the EI method. Of course, we can continue to function like this, but it is conditional on frequent maintenance, which replaces the sufficient activity of bacteria in the aquarium.
The response of biofilms to large amounts of toxins must be rapid, otherwise they would die and the system would collapse. The proof is this story Detritus Mulm here https://barrreport.com/threads/iron-toxicity.6494/, when with a rapid overdose of micronutrients in chelates, the processes of decomposition, not only nitrification but also decomposition, almost stopped, because after the problem with the overdose of microelements, ammonia rose slightly in aquarium. Biofilms closed even more. If they slowed down only nitrification, the fish would be gone, and if they slowed down only decomposition, ammonia would be at zero as always, so they had to slow down both groups - the entire biofilm. In chelates, metals are safe, of course, but they also break down and are not only in the water, but also trapped on the surfaces of biofilms. And what about the metal + DOC chelate, does it also remain only on the surface of the biofilm? Apparently yes, otherwise it would be a source of metals just like any other chelate and thus the chelate DOC + metal accumulates, because it is blocked by the bound metal for a greater intake of DOC by bacteria.
This theory of mine assumes that when nutrients /microelements/ are not supplied to the water in an uncoordinated manner, the success rate of waste decomposition will be higher. You will definitely write to me that these are my fantasies and sci-fi and I make observations with imprecise tests and ... Please make observations with laboratory tests in well-paid reputable laboratories and refute my claims, based on amateur tests and without funding.
Source used:
https://ziva.avcr.cz/files/ziva/pdf/mikrobialni-biofilmy-1-vsudypritomny-a-pritom-malo.pdf
https://ziva.avcr.cz/files/ziva/pdf/mikrobialni-biofilmy-2-vodni-prostredi.pdf
Last edited:
Ah here it is, was wondering how long it was going to take...You had BBA in your tank before you started the experiment because you dosed following EI? Plenty of fish tanks with no EI dosing with clumps of BBA. Here some EI tanks with Bucephalandra so there are no comments about trimming stems. Clearly another failure of EI, nothing to do with the aquarist and tank upkeep practices