Clarification on “bio load” and “bacterial buildup” as used in discus circles p

[Xirxes]

In most aquaculture/aquarist groups the term “bio load” is a reference to the quantity of organic waste material being created for processing in a system.

In discus circles I see it used more frequently as referring to organic waste accumulation or physical organic “mulm” built up in a system.

Slight differences here and the discus branded term has a wholly negative connotation vs the other being a mere stocking reference datum.
Am I reading this correctly?

Also when members here talk about bacterial buildup, especially in a negative regard, are we talking about aeromonas/pseudomonas destructive bacterias, anoxic bacterias or nitrifying bacterias as well?

Is there actually a negative correlation between high “beneficial bacteria” aka nitrifying and discus health? Or are we concerned with direct impact of aero/pseudo and indirect impact of sulfur creating anaerobics?

Thank you for any clarity you can bring.

[Filip]

I personally understand bioload solely as pound of fish per water volume .
Bacterial build up is refered to the anaerobic bacterias (fish pathogens ) that consume organic waste as their main fuel unlike the Beneficial bacteria species that thrives in high oxigen water .
So basically we aim to get more Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter and less Pseudo/aero monas in our system .
Just my 2 cents and propably "oversimplified " belief on this complex subject .

[Sturiosoma]

In most aquaculture/aquarist groups the term “bio load” is a reference to the quantity of organic waste material being created for processing in a system.

In discus circles I see it used more frequently as referring to organic waste accumulation or physical organic “mulm” built up in a system.

Slight differences here and the discus branded term has a wholly negative connotation vs the other being a mere stocking reference datum.
Am I reading this correctly?

Also when members here talk about bacterial buildup, especially in a negative regard, are we talking about aeromonas/pseudomonas destructive bacterias, anoxic bacterias or nitrifying bacterias as well?

Is there actually a negative correlation between high “beneficial bacteria” aka nitrifying and discus health? Or are we concerned with direct impact of aero/pseudo and indirect impact of sulfur creating anaerobics?

Thank you for any clarity you can bring.

Yes

Jeanne

[Willie]

It's a great question, because there are different takes on the terminology. For me, bioload for discus is somewhat different than for other aquarium fish.

Discus evolved in extremely clean, low pH waters. The key to low pH is extraordinarily low bacterial population in the water column. When I used to teach microbiology, a typical intro lab experiment is to plate your palm print on medium with different levels of pH. At neutral pH's, the plates are full of bacteria. As pH drops, bacterial colonies are reduced and fungal growth prevails.

Bacteria are the first step in the food chain, so there's very little microfauna in the water. Hence discus had to evolve a system to feed their fry. (There's precious little for the fry to eat like other species in water with heavier bioloads.) So changing water for discus is more than just diluting out nitrate, ammonia, etc. Over several decades of keeping these fish, they absolutely grow better and faster in pristine water. Mulm does not cut it in a discus tank.

Willie

[gimaal]

What an excellent explanation, Willie. I never thought of it in those terms before, particularly the raison d'être for the unique fry-feeding system.

[Xirxes]

I did not know the direct relation between low pH and bacteria! I wonder if this is the primary function of Indian almond leaf addition and decreasing bacteria in column (we use it for dart frog tadpoles as well) as compared to something else the tannins themselves do.

Do we know, at pH of say 8.0-8.2 are there similar deleterious effects on bacteria?

I’m with you down with mulm!