The benefits of detritus.

[Frankie]

Hey Mike! Good to see you on the board buddy May actually get my interests going here again~

Still trying to save the reefing world huh? Good luck buddy! I gave up and just lead by example these days. Here's a good read on this topic also~

http://www.reefsanctuary.com/forums...ver-replaces-skimmer-refugium-everything.html

Bring some coffee, chisel & hammer, it's a long read.

Talk to you later bud,

Frank

 

[mojoreef]

Ah no fight folks, no fight what so ever.

Ah, ok. I'm just trying to figure out other methods for nutrient export.

So this is the crux of the question. Fish waste and food are the two main sources of nutrients in our tanks, if you work to remove as much as you can instead of allowing it to sit and decompose in your tank you will be way ahead of the game. Biological processes such as sinking it into a sand bed, or binding it into algae, or new ways such as carbon dosing, biopellets, zeovits and so on are all measures folks now use to deal with waste through decomposition. You could simply get a turkey baster and spend a half hour removing this waste and save weeks of biological decomposition through either bacteria or algae.

Dam, I wonder how much metal my reef has, I don't use PolyFilters

Metals that come into our tanks via salt mixes are tiny and mostly match those that occur naturally in the wild. Bacteria in the wild and in our tank bind them to ourselves as well as to seed surfaces such as sand and rock. SO it is a non issue, this was all created with a flawed study by Dr. Ron using urchin larvae, hundred of people changed their salt mixes to what the study said and 75% of them had tank crashes as a result.

The reason I asked about the dsb/rugf thing was that their concepts are completely different. A dsb creates (amongst other things) anaerobic zones (areas devoid or very low in oxygen) in order to create an enviroments for denitrifing bacteria. A rugf work by blowing water from the tank through the bottom of the sand bed and up, this would not allow that zone to occur as highly oxygenated water would kill the anaerobic zone.

mojo

 

[Paul B]

this was all created with a flawed study by Dr. Ron using urchin larvae, hundred of people changed their salt mixes to what the study said and 75% of them had tank crashes as a result.

I remember that study and when it was published I asked the same question, why has my reef not crashed from metal accumulation. I never agreed with that study.

A rugf work by blowing water from the tank through the bottom of the sand bed and up, this would not allow that zone to occur as highly oxygenated water would kill the anaerobic zone.

Well, not exactly. It is true that in a RUGF there is water flowing throughout "most" of the substrait but in the model that I propose, the water is runing very slowly. It is barely flowing. In this situation I believe that the supply of detritus will reduce the flow sufficiently enough to actually promote some anerobic bacteria. This I believe will happen in a number of weeks or months. In the interfaces of every particle of gravel is detritus, this detritus in these tiny places has almost no circulation and when the water slowly infuses from the bottom, up, enough oxygen is removed to allow this to happen.
Also the gravel is saturated with pods and worms, predominently tiny tube worms that will also serve to remove oxygen.
There is no chance for hydrogen sulfide to form because of the water flowing around these places.
Of course I am talking tiny places here, not a large DSB where you can see the anerobic areas.
The interface between two pieces of gravel is tiny to us but an entire city to a bacterium.
This of course comes from my twisted mind and being I am the only person to use a slow running RUGF, there are no studies and there never will be because there is no money to be made with this technology.
I can prove that it works because my reef has low nitrates and I rarely change water. I am not sure if anyone can prove that it does not work.
I am not advocating this system, there is too much negative thinking about it, But that thinking came about from using UG filters in fresh water which is incorrect for salt water.:nopity:

 

[mojoreef]

Well your always going to get small areas where anaerobic areas will form. Just the bacterial flock and bio-film the bacteria create is going to be anaerobic. I dont think your going to get away from the formation of Hydrogen sulfide Paul as the occupy the same areas that the denitrifiers do, so you can have one with out the other really. If you just take the areas where LR is sitting on top of the sand its is almost always going to be a prime area for the growth of Sulfide reducers. When you look at the concept of sediment systems you have to understand that the bacteria do not need help in creating their enviroment and enviroments for bacteria down the line.

So if you look at this above picture of bio-film you can see that the bacteria form pathways for the transmission of nutrients in and bi-products out, this is one way they are able to pass through say nitrates to the bacteria below to be reduced.

Mojo

 

[Paul B]

Well your always going to get small areas where anaerobic areas will form.

Yes, that is my plan

If you just take the areas where LR is sitting on top of the sand its is almost always going to be a prime area for the growth of Sulfide reducers

I don't want to large an area of reduced oxygen which is the reason my entire reef structure is mounted on hollow supports like this. I have very little actual rock sitting on my substrait.
You don't see these structures in the tank, only the bottom of the legs in some places and these legs are also hollow.

 

[SantaMonica]

algae does not and cannot touch inorganic nutrients not one tiny piece.

This is the problem. You either typed this wrong, or you really don't understand Bio 101. Inorganics are (pretty much) ALL that algae consume. What do you think happens to all the inorganics in the oceans and lakes?

So your going to compare a trophic pyramid in the ocean to a reef tank??

Yes. Same.

we are not able to recreate the scale needed.

Certainly we can. I've personally gotten about halfway there already, by feeding the equivalent of 25 cubes a day to my 90 gal. A real reef my size would be consuming about 50 cubes. This requires harvesting of at least one pound (wet) of algae, preferably two, per week.

 

[mojoreef]

This is the problem. You either typed this wrong, or you really don't understand Bio 101

Yea didnt finish typing the thought. "Unless converted to a dissolved form" was meant to be in their. What I was trying to get across is that you are putting a very heavy load on bacteria to reduce the detritus/waste and the shear amount of food you are putting into your tank. Just assuming that algae would take care of everything in your tank seems a little ?? careless?

and yes I have a Bachelor in both biology and in marine science.

Certainly we can. I've personally gotten about halfway there already, by feeding the equivalent of 25 cubes a day to my 90 gal. A real reef my size would be consuming about 50 cubes. This requires harvesting of at least one pound (wet) of algae, preferably two, per week.

So you have created a very good algae producing system. But what benefits do you think you can achieve in regards to a reef tank? If you are thinking that feeding 50 cubes of food a day is some kind of target for reaching scale you are mistaken. You have to remember that reefs have way more of everything, sand in beaches is massive compared to a tank, same with rocks, billions of fish and billions of other creatures that consume that quantity of food and bind it to their matrix. Now add to that the flow both in and out of the reefs that takes nutrients out of the reef, I look at your reef (and it is nice) but it is missing thousands of life forms that make up that food web found in the wild.

Beyond growing algae, I just cant see what it is your trying to accomplish?

Mojo

 

[Paul B]

and yes I have a Bachelor in both biology and in marine science.

I am an electrician and have a UG filter, does that count?

50 cubes, really? Thats what I feed my 100 gallon reef in fifty days.

 

[mojoreef]

LOL Paul and with those degrees I own a painting company!!!


Mojo

 

[Paul B]

LOL Paul and with those degrees I own a painting company!!!

Mojo, you have more degrees than a thermometer. I don't have any. It seems my life has been a series of courses.
I have a "degree" in pole climbing from the army, (that comes in handy) also from the army I have a "degree" in radio mechanics, leadership, artillery, tanks, jungle warfare and various other "army" stuff. :nopity: Then I have from my job, high voltage, subway track, leadership, blue print reading, cad welding, rigging and safety. Of course 5 years of electrical school, the highlight of my life. Then for fun I have SCUBA certification and I am a boat Captain. :willis:
With all these courses I still need $2.00 to ride a train.

My union wanted to give me a degree. It is called "Life experience" or some other nonsence and all I would have done was to attend some school for 6 months. Just think, a degree. What a stupid waste of 6 months that would have been.

 

[Jerry]

That was why I fell in love with the hobby. Saltwater aquariums are just full of surprises and I remember at one time, I actually found a tiny crab but I don't ever recall added one in before.

 

[Paul B]

I actually found a tiny crab but I don't ever recall added one in before

I love crabs and I also find them occasionally. I bought this guy. (under the bleeny)

 

[Montireef]

Really interesting thread. Come on pals, keep on posting!

 

[Paul B]

I post all over this forum.

 

[Mike Johnson]

This is old days, but Peter Wilkens, a notable aquarist, would deliberately stir his substrate to feed corals with dissolved organics, bacteria, and plankton. He had success with the very challenging Dendronephthya type corals for many years doing this.

 

[Choff]

I thought for a second I mistakenly was routed to RC as read this thread. Good stuff but with a lot of attitude (not from you Paul)

...stupid auto correct

 

[Paul B]

Peter Wilkens was a very respected innovator of this hobby and I read all his works and got some ideas from him. Robert Straughn was another one and I would call him my mentor.
A lot of innovations came about before the internet when we had to experiment to learn something rather than use Google. Then we took the result of our experiment and tried it on our animals and got first hand results with no conflicting views, criticisms or opinions that unfortunately, many times, are the result of rumor or second or third hand knowledge. We personally knew the outcome of our experiment and used that knowledge for the betterment of our hobby and creatures in our care.
For instance, I know exactly how to cure ich, usually in a day. I know exactly how to keep my fish from getting it. I know how to keep hair algae off my corals and how to feed a Moorish Idol or mandarin.
I know these things because I have experimented numerous times (not once or twice) and after the initial failures, I knew exactly what did "not" work. You want to know what does not work as well as what does work. This knowledge comes from decades of experiments, not weeks. When something goes wrong, the first thing most people will say is to change the water. Does that ever work?
In certain situations, yes, like if a manta ray died in your tank or Lindsay Lohan got sick in it. Then I would change the water.
I do "not" know much about phosphates, Taylor Swift, silicates, nitrates, DOCs or an entire plethora of things we normally associate with this hobby. I want to know more but I do know enough about those things to know what is and is not harmful. If I believed all I read, I would presume that almost any amount of nitrate or phosphate was bad and that is the way Noobs will perceive it as that is what is written.
That is IMO wrong. If I believe all I read I would think that quarantining is the "only " way to go. That is wrong. If I were to read about UG filters I would believe they were all bad and I would learn a new phrase, Nitrate factory. But that is wrong. I would read that cyano is bad and that I need to add some chemical immediately to "Cure" it. That is wrong.
I may read that a tang could not live in a fifty gallon tank. Wrong again (but a larger tank would be so much better)
I used to read that a DSB was the end all and be all of salt tanks. That is wrong. I have read many times of the hazards of using NSW. Wrong again.
A Noob may read about the successes of a hobbiest because he can keep his fish alive for 5 years. Most of our fish live 15 or 20 years and the only ones with that short of a lifespan are in the sea horse family or small gobies and cardinals. So that is wrong. I love it when someone writes about what he attributes his success to. And it is usually garlic, cleaner shrimp or a the newest food on the market. Then you find out his tank is one year old or worse yet, he started it last Tuesday. I do know that I am Pig headed, stubborn, bald and a host of other things that I am uncomfortable calling myself, but I am some of them, maybe most of them. I rarely give advice as I am at the point in my life where I don't care to argue. I get PMs every day where I will try to answer any question, person to person without the arguments that you will sometimes get in an open forum like this. Right now there are 6,000 people saying, he is nuts, Bald, old and nuts, you must quarantine, tangs need a 1,000 gallon tank, garlic is the only way to go and Justin Bieber can sing as well as Elvis Presley. Yes, I know that you know, that I know, who you are. I have a long thread on this forum about my practices and what I do. Many people dis agree with me and that is fine, it is what makes the world go around and I don't profess to be an expert on anything. Except reverse undergravel filters as I probably have more experience with than anyone on the planet, so yes, I am an expert on them. Those and the Majano Wand as I invented the thing and hold the patent. But everything else is up for grabs.
There are certainly plenty of tanks on this and other forums that look much better than mine and I am jealous of many of them. There are also certainly plenty of smarter people than me here.
I am in awe of some of the creative works that I see here and am so glad that I picked such a rewarding hobby. I mean, who's better than us? We get to keep such beautiful, delicate, interesting creatures alive and we do it in so many different ways.

 

[Mike Johnson]

Yes, it still brings me comfort and a sense of awe when I come inside my house from -10 degrees to see a reef in my living room.

I stir or blow around my substrate once in a while and contribute a healthy tank to it. When I do cause a "mini hurricane" my gorgonians will fully extend their polyps, the feather dusters love it, the corals will send out their tentacles.

 

[Lee]

Gravel... That's not a bad idea. A hell of a lot easier to clean than friggin sand!

 

[SantaMonica]

White gravel, maybe.