Bare bottom tank
- Thread starter josephv
- Start date
To me, organisms that I do not have to directly feed are not part of the bioload of the tank. You could get technical and say that they do metabolize and therefore add 'load' to the system, but this is misleading. Snails, crabs, worms, bacteria, and others feed off of waste from other organisms as well as the organisms themselves, both dead and alive. Detrivores are named as such because they eat decaying matter.
There's not really a big mystery in my mind about where these things go. I could be looking at things too simplistically, but my understanding is that organics are eventually processed into inorganics, resulting in nutrients such as N, P, etc. The various organisms in the sand bed serve to process these organics into their inorganic counterparts which are then processed further by anaerobic areas of the bed.
I want to correct/explain what I was saying here. I agree to a point with Johns post about Eutrophication. At the same time, it could very well be that the sheer amount of nutrients in the water is too much for the sand in these lagoonal areas to process. I believe the same would be true if a tank had too high a bioload for the sand bed (and other systems) to be able to 'keep up' with nutrient export. .
gwaco
New member
heres a small abstract , the one thing most people forget is that a sandbed is in constant flux , so what you get for a reading one minute will change in the next .
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=5311546
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=5311546
just check water param today and no phosphate/nitrate/nitrites on overstocked solana. We don't have any phos reactors nor do we have any cheato or refuge. Our filtration is very simple filter pad, skimmer, filter pad and return back to tank.
Bare bottom is the way to go. Easy to keep clean. I like the look of sand but have had great luck w/ bb. Good luck.
Bare bottom is the way to go. Easy to keep clean. I like the look of sand but have had great luck w/ bb. Good luck.
cfmx: What type of skimmer do you run on that system. One of the things that's prevented me from going BB is the need for a oversized (read: expensive) skimmer.
WWC: Your reputation preceeds you. I've read in many posts, from many people across the country that your tanks are beautiful. What skimmers do you run on those tanks? How often/large are your water changes?
WWC: Your reputation preceeds you. I've read in many posts, from many people across the country that your tanks are beautiful. What skimmers do you run on those tanks? How often/large are your water changes?
ichthyman
Active member
I hate to sound like a hippie but it's all about energy.
“To me, organisms that I do not have to directly feed are not part of the bioload of the tank. You could get technical and say that they do metabolize and therefore add 'load' to the system, but this is misleading. Snails, crabs, worms, bacteria, and others feed off of waste from other organisms as well as the organisms themselves, both dead and alive.â€Â
Not correct. The First Law of Thermodynamics says otherwise. When you use the words nutrient, organic, fish, bacteria, critters, food, plants, etc., etc. you’re talking about vessels of stored energy. Once matter, energy, is added to a system it will remain until removed. If a critter dies its matter will decay or be consumed but the nutrients, energy, will remain until exported. Same goes for everything else intentionally and unintentionally placed within an aquarium.
“I could be looking at things too simplistically, but my understanding is that organics are eventually processed into inorganics, resulting in nutrients such as N, P, etc.â€Â
These are little more complex flowcharts depicting the nitrogen cycle in marine environments. While still simple they're more inclusive than what is normally found in hobby literature. As you can see the Nitrogen cycled is not an one-way street that is so often portrayed.
Sediment Nitrogen Cycle
Biological Processes in the Nitrogen Cycle
Nutrient, energy, enrichment of waters can result in accelerated accumulation of organic matter in sediments. Nutrient loading results not only in an increase in the total nutrient content of the sediment but also increases the concentration of soluble forms that can be released into the overlying water column. Nitrogen and Phosphorus compounds can most certainly flux into and out of marine sediments.
“To me, organisms that I do not have to directly feed are not part of the bioload of the tank. You could get technical and say that they do metabolize and therefore add 'load' to the system, but this is misleading. Snails, crabs, worms, bacteria, and others feed off of waste from other organisms as well as the organisms themselves, both dead and alive.â€Â
Not correct. The First Law of Thermodynamics says otherwise. When you use the words nutrient, organic, fish, bacteria, critters, food, plants, etc., etc. you’re talking about vessels of stored energy. Once matter, energy, is added to a system it will remain until removed. If a critter dies its matter will decay or be consumed but the nutrients, energy, will remain until exported. Same goes for everything else intentionally and unintentionally placed within an aquarium.
“I could be looking at things too simplistically, but my understanding is that organics are eventually processed into inorganics, resulting in nutrients such as N, P, etc.â€Â
These are little more complex flowcharts depicting the nitrogen cycle in marine environments. While still simple they're more inclusive than what is normally found in hobby literature. As you can see the Nitrogen cycled is not an one-way street that is so often portrayed.
Sediment Nitrogen Cycle
Biological Processes in the Nitrogen Cycle
Nutrient, energy, enrichment of waters can result in accelerated accumulation of organic matter in sediments. Nutrient loading results not only in an increase in the total nutrient content of the sediment but also increases the concentration of soluble forms that can be released into the overlying water column. Nitrogen and Phosphorus compounds can most certainly flux into and out of marine sediments.
triggerfish1976
New member
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15135257#post15135257 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ichthyman
I hate to sound like a hippie but it's all about energy.
“To me, organisms that I do not have to directly feed are not part of the bioload of the tank. You could get technical and say that they do metabolize and therefore add 'load' to the system, but this is misleading. Snails, crabs, worms, bacteria, and others feed off of waste from other organisms as well as the organisms themselves, both dead and alive.â€Â
Not correct. The First Law of Thermodynamics says otherwise. When you use the words nutrient, organic, fish, bacteria, critters, food, plants, etc., etc. you’re talking about vessels of stored energy. Once matter, energy, is added to a system it will remain until removed. If a critter dies its matter will decay or be consumed but the nutrients, energy, will remain until exported. Same goes for everything else intentionally and unintentionally placed within an aquarium.
“I could be looking at things too simplistically, but my understanding is that organics are eventually processed into inorganics, resulting in nutrients such as N, P, etc.â€Â
These are little more complex flowcharts depicting the nitrogen cycle in marine environments. While still simple they're more inclusive than what is normally found in hobby literature. As you can see the Nitrogen cycled is not an one-way street that is so often portrayed.
Sediment Nitrogen Cycle
Biological Processes in the Nitrogen Cycle
Nutrient, energy, enrichment of waters can result in accelerated accumulation of organic matter in sediments. Nutrient loading results not only in an increase in the total nutrient content of the sediment but also increases the concentration of soluble forms that can be released into the overlying water column. Nitrogen and Phosphorus compounds can most certainly flux into and out of marine sediments.
Can this be your next avatar
ichthyman,
Thanks for the diagrams and your post. It definitely helps me understand things a bit by expanding that it's not just the usual NH4->N02->N03->N2 that's commonly explained. I also agree that various compounds are in flux between the sediment and water column.
Not correct. The First Law of Thermodynamics says otherwise. When you use the words nutrient, organic, fish, bacteria, critters, food, plants, etc., etc. you’re talking about vessels of stored energy. Once matter, energy, is added to a system it will remain until removed. If a critter dies its matter will decay or be consumed but the nutrients, energy, will remain until exported. Same goes for everything else intentionally and unintentionally placed within an aquarium.
I don't disagree and didn't think I was saying the opposite in my first post. Since bioload is a hobbyist term, it's not easily defined. Technically you're right, any organism added to a system will add organic matter to that system. However, when adding a sand bed (or live rock, or bacteria) to a system, the amount of organic matter added in the beginning is much smaller than months down the road as a result of reproduction and growth. These organisms use the organic and inorganic compounds that are added or already exist in the system to grow and reproduce.
As to energy, it is provided in the form of various compounds. When a molecule is processed by bacteria (or phytoplankton as in the equation I posted earlier), the chemical reaction that takes place can release energy to be used by the organism. Part of that molecule will end up back in the system, but other parts will be converted into gas, water, etc. This is effecively exporting nutrients. When bacteria reduce nitrate to nitrogen gas, it isn't violating the first law of thermodynamics. The system is closed, but the nitrogen is still exported in the form of nitrogen gas.
I found this information when reading about nitrogen fixation:
FROM: http://www.biology.ed.ac.uk/research/groups/jdeacon/microbes/nitrogen.htm
Thanks for the diagrams and your post. It definitely helps me understand things a bit by expanding that it's not just the usual NH4->N02->N03->N2 that's commonly explained. I also agree that various compounds are in flux between the sediment and water column.
Not correct. The First Law of Thermodynamics says otherwise. When you use the words nutrient, organic, fish, bacteria, critters, food, plants, etc., etc. you’re talking about vessels of stored energy. Once matter, energy, is added to a system it will remain until removed. If a critter dies its matter will decay or be consumed but the nutrients, energy, will remain until exported. Same goes for everything else intentionally and unintentionally placed within an aquarium.
I don't disagree and didn't think I was saying the opposite in my first post. Since bioload is a hobbyist term, it's not easily defined. Technically you're right, any organism added to a system will add organic matter to that system. However, when adding a sand bed (or live rock, or bacteria) to a system, the amount of organic matter added in the beginning is much smaller than months down the road as a result of reproduction and growth. These organisms use the organic and inorganic compounds that are added or already exist in the system to grow and reproduce.
As to energy, it is provided in the form of various compounds. When a molecule is processed by bacteria (or phytoplankton as in the equation I posted earlier), the chemical reaction that takes place can release energy to be used by the organism. Part of that molecule will end up back in the system, but other parts will be converted into gas, water, etc. This is effecively exporting nutrients. When bacteria reduce nitrate to nitrogen gas, it isn't violating the first law of thermodynamics. The system is closed, but the nitrogen is still exported in the form of nitrogen gas.
I found this information when reading about nitrogen fixation:
The diagram below shows an overview of the nitrogen cycle in soil or aquatic environments. At any one time a large proportion of the total fixed nitrogen will be locked up in the biomass or in the dead remains of organisms (shown collectively as "organic matter"). So, the only nitrogen available to support new growth will be that which is supplied by nitrogen fixation from the atmosphere (pathway 6 in the diagram) or by the release of ammonium or simple organic nitrogen compounds through the decomposition of organic matter (pathway 2). Some of other stages in this cycle are mediated by specialised groups of microorganisms and are explained below.
FROM: http://www.biology.ed.ac.uk/research/groups/jdeacon/microbes/nitrogen.htm
Last edited:
ichthyman
Active member
Bioload or BioMass the two terms are close enough for me.
Neither reproduction nor growth changes the amount of energy within a system. The energy is still there just waiting to be released. As far as N goes typical turnover for sequestered biomass is a month to a year. If you want to count the energy loss due to locomotion/work I’ll give you that.
I’m familiar with the formula.
You can’t sum up the world’s marine ecosystem or what is happening in our tanks in tidy series of independent formulas. The complexity of these environments is staggering and no one science has a hope to explain it all. Please don’t mock, the mantra comment, those who chose to lessen the variables and exercise a greater degree of control over their aquariums. Many of these folks have had sandbeds previously and followed the current recommendations of the experts but yet still failed. Why? Not the correct substrate. Not enough or in the wrong ratio of critters in the substrate. Sandbed wasn’t deep enough. Heavy metals in the salt mix. No protein skimmer. Too much protein skimming. Or my personal favorite, “you’re too dumb run a DSB†even though the expert who said it couldn’t maintain a tank for more than a couple years before it would mysteriously crash. I’m done with this conversation now. I suggest that anyone who would like a better understanding of the bare bottom approach, to do a search for posts made by Bomber. He was the first advocate here on RC and very possible the originator of the concept. Unfortunately, he and some other good people where victims of the great “SandWars†of 04’-05’.
Neither reproduction nor growth changes the amount of energy within a system. The energy is still there just waiting to be released. As far as N goes typical turnover for sequestered biomass is a month to a year. If you want to count the energy loss due to locomotion/work I’ll give you that.
I’m familiar with the formula.
- C02 in ocean forms carbonic acid in equilibrium with bicarbonate and carbonate ions or used in photosynthesis or sinked into the abyss for eventual turnover or burial. C02 will outgas in warmer waters only until equilibrium is achieved.
Water is water and it was already there.
Hydrogen is reactive in many ways. H Ions can associates with a carbonate ion to form another bicarbonate ion, thereby making carbonate or if enough is present begin to lower the medium’s pH and thus preventing the aforementioned. H along with N can be combined by cyanobacteria and turned into Ammonium.
Phosphate and Nitrate are bad, MmKay. Not really, I’m just too tired to get into it. Bad only in excess and most likely if you, hobbyist, can detect them they’re in excess.
Nitrogen fixation is included in the second chart. Free-living or as a symbiont within a higher alga, such as diatoms, to date all marine N-fixers belong to the bacteria domain, cyanobacteria. They replace nitrogen, I never said nitrogen didn’t escape, lost to ecosystems from denitrification. They’re responsible for converting N into its more usable form Ammonium.
You can’t sum up the world’s marine ecosystem or what is happening in our tanks in tidy series of independent formulas. The complexity of these environments is staggering and no one science has a hope to explain it all. Please don’t mock, the mantra comment, those who chose to lessen the variables and exercise a greater degree of control over their aquariums. Many of these folks have had sandbeds previously and followed the current recommendations of the experts but yet still failed. Why? Not the correct substrate. Not enough or in the wrong ratio of critters in the substrate. Sandbed wasn’t deep enough. Heavy metals in the salt mix. No protein skimmer. Too much protein skimming. Or my personal favorite, “you’re too dumb run a DSB†even though the expert who said it couldn’t maintain a tank for more than a couple years before it would mysteriously crash. I’m done with this conversation now. I suggest that anyone who would like a better understanding of the bare bottom approach, to do a search for posts made by Bomber. He was the first advocate here on RC and very possible the originator of the concept. Unfortunately, he and some other good people where victims of the great “SandWars†of 04’-05’.
Last edited:
I took a bit of time to think over this response because I feel like this discussion isn't ending well. A discussion is beneficial only if we keep an open mind and don't allow emotions or personal slants to cloud our comments. I obviously didn't recognize this when I posted my original statement about Mantras and I apologize for this. I appreciate the time you've taken to engage the remarks that I've made, I've learned quite a bit from it.
I have a lot of respect for John and his contributions to both the reefing community and the progression of the hobby through innovation, questioning the norm, etc. I also have a lot of respect for different methods of keeping a reef, bare-bottom being absolutely not the exception. I feel like the fundamental tenets of bare-bottom tanks are sound. As we've seen many times, they can be applied to successfully keep a thriving reef tank. I've actually just recently started siphoning my 3" sand bed from my display tank because of nitrate issues.
Please keep in mind that I wasn't around for the "SandWars" of 04-05. Back then I didn't even know keeping corals in a box was possible. Every discussion I've tried to open about Bare Bottom vs. DSB has been met with hesitation or ridicule. This has been the most informative one I've had to date.
What I do know is that many "experts" whom I highly respect advocate DSB. RHF, WaterKeeper, Melev are just a few of these folks. The term "so-called experts" is IMO also disrespectful. Some of the above mentioned people are highly respected individuals who have published in their fields. By this I mean scientific publications, not articles in ReefKeeping Magazine or Insert-Online-Reef-Publication-Here. EDIT: For those of you who read this before I looked up the history of Shimek, Borneman and Boomer, please forgive my ignorance. I've removed those names just for the sake of preventing another flame war.
I totally agree that we cannot even begin to describe the complex interactions that take place in our tanks. I also think that your approach of removing as many variables from the equation is sound. That said, I've seen many bare-bottom tanks with issues. Are they easier to keep than DSBs? Maybe, maybe not. The problems you listed above with DSBs also have similar parallels in BB tanks. Not enough flow. Didn't change the sock enough. Lack of a $1million skimmer. Didn't blow off the rocks weekly. Need to dose X product. I'm not saying that these issues invalidate BB as a legit approach. Any method needs to be tweaked and applied properly.
This hobby is still much more an art than a science. No one method has emerged as the single, best approach. What's important is that we continue to evolve our approaches, broaden our understanding and question the norm.
Please, please, please don't take this post as argumentative or flippant. I would hate to think that I've just made an enemy of someone I respect. You're one of the very few LFS's that I would actually take advise from.
Last edited:
No need for that. You've done more than enough for me already (thanks again for drilling the tank). I also have no problem with being told I'm wrong. We can only learn if we're willing to accept that we're not always right. I just wanted to make sure that I didn't offend anyone or seem like I was making personal attacks.
