Hey they changed my reply. Free Speach my @$$.
Kids don't read this. Where's my right to creative cursing...
Lets continue this mess.
Part two of the reply to Steve's reply:
Again the question remains, what is more effective a settling out in a dsb, where nitrate (N), P, S, C, and many other substances are cycled and food is recycled into plankton to feed the system, or the filtering aspects of sponges? I would say both are important, but the DSB seems easier and more beneficial IMO. Both can be combined to some extent in a low flow refugium. Just elevate the cryps a deal above the sandbed so they don't get clogged and use a high tank. That IMO would be the way to go. Or better yet having a separate tray to have water enter at before overflowing into the settling chamber. This would ensure that the sponges remain in the water at all times and do not automatically consume a good deal of the plankton from the sandbed. I don't know if there are practical problems apart from ensuring no air enters, which is easy enough to fix.
The question that remains is where do you get good non toxic cryps. Might have some potential as a hang on filter. Something you can sell as a organic mechanical filter.
I do like the feeding aspect of sponges, especially keeping angels or butterflys.
The questions that remain are how do you house a system that replicates an ecosystem. The amount of "supporting zones" would likely be three to five fold larger than the main tank. Well more like 600 fold, but lets remain semi practical.
If people can come up with idiot proof products and methods to accomplish this in small areas I think that would be the practical contribution to the hobby. Box o' Cryps sounds interesting.
I'm still of the opinion that dsb are more beneficial and a higher priority but soon after I would add algae and then sponges. I still like having a airstone driven CC skimmer in the system replicating the big open sea etc. Flowing at about 1/3 tank turnover. Air to water ratio of 3-5 to 1 air:water. And a contact time of about 1min.
Little yellowing, high plankton survival, lowest electricity, lowest toxins,etc.
>Heinrich wrote
Most systems are still starved and that's seen on the success few people have with non photosynthetic corals long term.
ST: They are not starved. They are using protein skimmers and sediment beds to hide the POM, collect the partially processed food and remove the collodials.
Starved of live plankton, such as phytoplankton, etc. The POM and DOM are waste, which corals can utilize a bit but as everything the dosage determines the poison.
If your system isn't balanced then the POM can become a problem. But again this is mostly true for SPS, LPS on the other hand require a whole lot more DOCrud... I never had luck with ellegances, or goniporas until they were in the crud collecting areas of the tank. Again its zonation.
Maybe you should have two different returns one from a refugium going to the LPS and another from a cryps filter going to the SPS if you're planning on keeping both together. That should solve some problems nicely and I believe would work out well.
With a gravity flow refugium there is also no danger of water siphoning back so the outlet of the refugium can be directed to the tank bottom for the benefit of the LPS. The return from the non lit cryps filter in the sump can then go to the Sps that want high lots of light on the top of the tank. Nice solution. I'm starting to see some better usages.
>Heinrich wrote
Again sponges produce comparatively little plankton and consume a good deal of bacteria. Which might be helpful for coral diseases, who knows.
ST: Sponges replace the skimmer. We don't want them adding food back into the system. Just like we don't want the Berliner adding skimmer effluent back into his reef. Unless of course we add marine angelfish and other sponge predators to cycle the sponges. Instead of harvesting them.
There is plenty of food already in your reef. The problem has been in making it presentable and collectable to the suspension feeders. I ran fully
populated cryptic, semi-cryptic and semi-exposed zones in tanks that were never fed. They derived all their food from the exposed zone. Its documented in the book.>
I'm not sure if I understand the analogy with pouring effluent back into the reef and organisms cycling waste into plankton.
The skimmer would collect waste over a period of time, concentrating it and usually it decomposes in the collection cup. Adding this would certainly not be very good.
Taking your analogy, of the berliner, and using the waste out of the skimmer to grow some phytoplankton, raise some copepods, rotifers, mysis, etc, and turn them into nutritional food and then add that food back to the system would be the analogy of having organisms that cycle waste. Again some of the effluent would turn into growth and might have to be harvested. Similar in the analogy some effluent will get onto the floor and needs to be cleaned up before the wife gets back so only a portion is brought back into the tank.
I for one am lazy and like my zones to do all that for me.
That the cryptic zones can get the majority of their food from the exposed zones is understandable. But looking at nature we see that our tanks produce nowhere close to the amount of plankton that the other areas produce. So with relying on just cryps we have a one sided off ballance. Mainly a lacking of diversity and a full cycle of producing, recycling and consuming.
I don't think you would notice the negative effects of the lack of food for a couple of years. Probably mostly in the ability of corals to fight of disease, and recover tissue. I'm amazed at how organisms can survive even in worst of situations. But keeping a kid alive for a year or 6 months isn't an acomlishment as much as until old age sets in. Malnurishment would be an interesting task over say the next couple of hundred years, to study if there's still corals left in the next 30yrs.
My sense of keeping a zen like balanced ecosystem is not happy by shifting the balance soley onto the consuming side. This reminds me of running, microns, clay, skimmers, ozone, UV, denitrators, carbon, resins, etc, just to try to keep the parameters where you want them, mostly by eliminating POM and DOM. But at the same time removing plankton.
The use of cryps can start to look as if were trying to get organic lean systems. Not what I like and I know that's not what you want either. Yet I fear that this is where things are possibly headed. The counterswing to refugia, maybe?
Each system needs to have all the necessary components and cryps are definitely a viable alternative as some components in a closed ecosystem.
God damn this is getting long again, alright lets finsh things fast.
>Heinrich wrote
>But if you can't see them the appeal is low unfortunately.
ST: You can see em. Your pupils will adapt, but you can alsways light em up with a flashlight or an incandescnet.>
Get some sources of nice looking sponges and seasquirts and I agree the appeal would be higher than most of the stuff surviving off of the LR. Strange thing is that some of the nicest seasquirts survive only in high flow high plankton water. So again getting the zonations right will be the tricky part where the experts are needed. Little kits would be a good idea. Unless your a PhD in Zoology specializing in Marine Inverts, well maybe just a MA.
If someone were to offer hardy beautiful sponges and squirts in an easy use unit, replacing a skimmer but still having refugia, that would certainly be a contribution to the hobby. A no electricity skimmer and Mechanical filter that needs cleaning every couple of months doesn't sound bad.
Alright hope to hear from you soon Steve.
93! Heinrich
and Heinrich posting again. 
