Microphotos of phytoplankton!

[MattM]

We just took these pictures with our latest toy - a 40x-100x-400x microscope with a built-in CCD camera.

All of these are from bottles off the shelf, well shaken, and roughly the same size drop. All photos are at 400x magnification.

DT's Phytoplankton

Kent Marine Phytoplex

Two Little Fishies Marine Snow

On both DT's and Kent, the field was filled with plankton and we just picked an average area to capture. On the Marine Snow we had to look around a bit to find anything.

Also, Phytoplex is advertised as a Tahitian blend, i.e. three different plankton species, and this appears to be the case.

The smallest cells in the Phytoplex appear to be the same species as all the cells in the DT's, and they are about 3um in size. These are most likely Nannochloropsis. The largest cells in the Phytoplex are about 7-9um in size.

Also of note, the cells all appear to be intact in the Phytoplex, in contrast to previous arguements that it only contains shredded cell parts.

It should be noted that Marine Snow contains animo acids and fatty acids, so it's not just a phytoplankton mix like the other two. This might excuse the relative lack of things to see. Marine Snow is also supposed to contain zooplankton, and we did see a fairly large "something" that was probably the body of some kind of small 'pod. Didn't capture that image though.

[ February 12, 2002: Message edited by: MattM ]</p>

 

[louey louey]

Well, it's time to throw out the Marine Snow

and get some DT's.

Thanks Matt

 

[imow]

Cool---do you have any of BSD's cryopastes??

 

[MattM]

Here's some of the other "things" we found in the Marine Snow. These are at the same magnification (400x) as the previous photos.

Not sure what these are. I mean, they could be colloidial clumps, i.e. "Marine Snow". After all, that's what the product is called.

[ February 12, 2002: Message edited by: MattM ]</p>

 

[Carpentersreef]

Matt,
That's great! Unfortunately, you give us an inch, and we'd like to see a mile...(any 1000x?)

From what I understand, Marine Snow uses the fatty acids (I think) to "bind" the phytoplankton together into larger "chunks" for filter feeding organisms to grasp. Can you relate your pictures to that idea? Is there any benefit in that in your opinion?

Thanks for the pics!

Mitch

 

[monkeyboy]

Great pics! How 'bout Kent Chromaplex? Section of one of your healthiest sandbeds?

And maybe one of Tom?

 

[Marcosreef]

It's nice to SEE what we add to our tanks...Thanks Matt!!!

 

[esmithiii]

Nice! Thanks, Matt.

Ernie

 

[Anonymous]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by LiquidShaneo:
<strong>So Matt, what make and model of digital microscope did you get?

A picture of the scope would be cool...
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes & how much did it put you back? Looks like it was a great investment.

 

[rosebud]

Posting pictures of naked phytoplankton? Is this sanctioned by the keepers of this discussion board? Seriously though, the photos of the exposed phtoplankton are a great metaphor for exposing the truth about what is "really" in these products. Thank you Matt and Tom.

 

[SPC]

Thanks guys, very informative!

Steve

 

[liquid]

So Matt, what make and model of digital microscope did you get?

A picture of the scope would be cool...

Shane

 

[Anonymous]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by monkeyboy:
[QB]Great pics! How 'bout Kent Chromaplex? Section of one of your healthiest sandbeds?/QB]<hr></blockquote>

We'll try Chromaplex and also TLF's Phytoplan which should give you an idea of what Spray Dried Phyto looks like.

The Sandbed's are tough because you are looking for moving life and what is easy to see in the scope and on the computer screen doesn't translate as well in a still image.

I did take this shot last week of a mysid - A moment of silence please because "Micky the Mysid" below donated his body to science.

40X image - multiple images pasted together in Photoshop.

 

[Anonymous]

very informative Matt. Thank you Muchos!!

 

[MattM]

All -

It's a Boreal model 57900-01 Digital SKope.

With an add-on mechanical stage it totaled around $600.

[ February 10, 2002: Message edited by: MattM ]</p>

 

[ColdinCanada]

Hey how about taking some pics of your skimmer effluent? I always wondered what critters were being removed by skimming.

Jay

 

[HARRISON]

The skimmer gunk (gunk being a technical term) would be cool to see under a scope. I wouldn't want to be the one handling it but I would love to see the pics.

Good work on the pics and thanks for sharing them!

 

[Anonymous]

Those two unknowns from the snow look like fractured poorly formed inorganic crystals to me. Judging by the number of phytos stuck to them I'd say that Carpentersreef?'s comment was probably right on the money. I know filter feeders pass sand in the wild, but I don't know that I want to be paying for the sand.

 

[MattM]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by seven ephors:
<strong>About the title, it should be photomicrograph, not microphotograph.

</strong><hr></blockquote>

But the short version, when you leave off the "graph", should it be "microphotos" or "photomicros"?

I go with what I know from astronomy - an instrument for photographing the heavens, an "astrograph", takes "astrophotos".

Who cares?

 

[Anonymous]

Matt:
Considering the number of people on the web and usenet who corrected my grammar and spelling in past ten years, you will be surprised at who cares

The issue with the prefix "micro" is that you have some people who works with very small photographs, and they are called microphotographs. We don't need technology that works with photograph the size of a star (or planet), so "astro" does not have this ambiguity.