Cryptic Zone Filtration
- Thread starter mr. bojangsjang
- Start date
bergzy
New member
wow,
talk about old threads and reviving them?
plus, how did i miss a cryptic zone thread?
here is my recent set up. yes, the mess is embarrassing but it is a working fish room/garage/storage area/tinker room. there! how's that for justification!?!
the only bummer thing is that i cant peek into the side of the opaque barrel to see whats growing. but this is a very small consequence to get good organisms growing.
light penetration is surprisingly little past the surface...so, i am guessing that there is a lot of goodies growing in there since my main display has a lot of sponge growth.
talk about old threads and reviving them?
plus, how did i miss a cryptic zone thread?
here is my recent set up. yes, the mess is embarrassing but it is a working fish room/garage/storage area/tinker room. there! how's that for justification!?!
the only bummer thing is that i cant peek into the side of the opaque barrel to see whats growing. but this is a very small consequence to get good organisms growing.
light penetration is surprisingly little past the surface...so, i am guessing that there is a lot of goodies growing in there since my main display has a lot of sponge growth.
I actually had a cryptic zone going in my display tank for several months (didn't know that's what it was at the time, nor was it intentional).... had some rock shift and was growing out my macro on the top of my tank over the same area where the rock fell against the glass. Made a completely bottom shaded region in the far right hand part of my tank. Had carpets of fans, as well as sponges growing everywhere, including the glass where I couldn't get to it, and even a few tunicates. I knew all that stuff was cool, but I had no idea how cool. No way to salvage it though.... had to move the macro to its rightful place in the sump (although if anyone ever needs their macro to grow out quickly, plopping it under halides is a surefire way to do it) and rearrange my rock. Definitely going to revamp the sump to allow for a cryptic zone.
BTW, Agu--love that DIY light fixture. Awesome.
And +1 on question regarding impact on nutrients?
Dumb question, I'm embarrassed to ask, but... how do you all harvest / get your pods back into the main tank for fish like mandarins?
Thanks all,
BTW, Agu--love that DIY light fixture. Awesome.
And +1 on question regarding impact on nutrients?
Dumb question, I'm embarrassed to ask, but... how do you all harvest / get your pods back into the main tank for fish like mandarins?
Thanks all,
BeanAnimal
Premium Member
begzy... that is not a mess... that is a fire waiting to happen. It kinda looks like mine
bergzy
New member
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15077980#post15077980 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by BeanAnimal
begzy... that is not a mess... that is a fire waiting to happen. It kinda looks like mine
'surprisingly'...and believe me, i am surprised...i have had the gfci trip only twice since being set up that way...
once was because i had unknown back pressure being built up from the carbon/gfo. this caused the flow to be redirected to the remote dsb and overflow...tripping the gfci. took me forever and a half to figure that one out since the back pressure wasnt constant thus causing very small irregular flow to the remote dsb mounted high up.
the second time was exactly when i finishedreplumbing everything to take the carbon/gfo filter offline. the remote dsb was getting a dedicated regulated amount of flow...thus, in theory, shouldnt overflow.
satisfied with my 1.5 days of effort, as i was walking through the garage door, i hear a big 'GUSH' of water spilling over, tripping the gfci again.
what the heck? i spent like 3 hours making sure the thing wouldnt receive too much flow again.
here is where coincidence plays a huge part in the hilarious story called life.
it turns out that at that very moment i was entering the house...a 4.7 quake shook los angeles. this small EARTHQUAKE spilled water out of the tank and onto the waiting dangling plug you see in the picture.
i spent probably another three hours fiddling with the flow until i figured that it was the earthquake and not the flow. how did i do this? i found spilt tank water from the inside tank as well...in the same east west direction that water came from the remote dsb.
tooooo funny! :lol: :rollface: :lol:
ctenophors rule
New member
interesting tidbit, the average human looses 5,000 pounds annualy, weather they gain, loose, maintain their weight.
also second law of thermodynamics deal with this i think?
entropy in a system? loss of energy? etc?
Biffer
New member
Just throwing it out there for the more knowledgable reefers to comment on (or not)
What if some of the "success" of Steve's system isn't just about what's being taken from the system, but what's being added?
If the cryptic zone is full of thriving benthic's, these creatures are reproducing (or at least trying really hard). If they are, aren't they releasing gametes and producing pelagic offspring that can be consumed by the rest of the tank inhabitant. In Steve's system, this would be primarily the corals.
We "farm" pods in our tanks all the time, as it provides both detritus consumers and a food source for fish such as mandarins, six lines, etc..
Here's where my knowledge breaks down. If they songes, turnicates, etc.. are consuming the same foods as the corals, then that competition for food would be a strain on the corals. But perhaps replacing this with another source of food provides a more well rounded diet for the corals. Obviously, this would depend a great deal on the type of coral you have and the type of benthinc organisms. But except in cases where there is no benefit form the new variety of food sources for the corals, I would think more sources of food for the corals would be better.
thoughts?
What if some of the "success" of Steve's system isn't just about what's being taken from the system, but what's being added?
If the cryptic zone is full of thriving benthic's, these creatures are reproducing (or at least trying really hard). If they are, aren't they releasing gametes and producing pelagic offspring that can be consumed by the rest of the tank inhabitant. In Steve's system, this would be primarily the corals.
We "farm" pods in our tanks all the time, as it provides both detritus consumers and a food source for fish such as mandarins, six lines, etc..
Here's where my knowledge breaks down. If they songes, turnicates, etc.. are consuming the same foods as the corals, then that competition for food would be a strain on the corals. But perhaps replacing this with another source of food provides a more well rounded diet for the corals. Obviously, this would depend a great deal on the type of coral you have and the type of benthinc organisms. But except in cases where there is no benefit form the new variety of food sources for the corals, I would think more sources of food for the corals would be better.
thoughts?
Agu
Premium Member
As I pointed out my tanks are fed far more than the average tank. With luck excess food goes through the overflow and into the cryptic zone to feed those organisms. As also pointed out the rock anemones are huge and I suspect that's a function of secondary food sources washing over the baffles.
Is this removing food for the corals or adding food from lower on the food chain? All I know is in that tank there is no nuisance algae and I have to frag the corals on a regular basis.
This is all anecdotal and hypothetical but the pod population in the cryptic zone and anemone sump is extraordinary. Even after the number of pods probably captured by the anemones.
Or as my friend Brian the coral farmer asked, "What kind of steroids are you feeding those anemones?"
Is this removing food for the corals or adding food from lower on the food chain? All I know is in that tank there is no nuisance algae and I have to frag the corals on a regular basis.
This is all anecdotal and hypothetical but the pod population in the cryptic zone and anemone sump is extraordinary. Even after the number of pods probably captured by the anemones.
Or as my friend Brian the coral farmer asked, "What kind of steroids are you feeding those anemones?"
tonyespinoza
Premium Member
hey agu - let's see a pic of your cryptic anemone zone!
OCEAN SIZE
BACK REEFIN'
Nice Agu
mr.wilson
.Registered Member
Adding more livestock to the sump is a good use of wasted space (two tanks for the price of one), but in Agu's case it isn't a true cryptic or benthic filtration method. While it has passive flow, the illumination encourages photosynthetic competitors. If the anemones were in the first compartment where the excess food enters, it would be of more use as a reducer/assimilator. As a secondary display with anemones that require dedicated feeding, it will only increase the bioload of the system. Xenia on the other hand can be exported with their cache of heavy metals.
OCEAN SIZE
BACK REEFIN'
I'm thinking of setting my my 150g rubbermaid sump as a benthic area, full of live rock but keeping the sand (RDSB + shallow in display) and fuge (chaeto) separate.
I have a lot of rock with active sponge life going.
Is this a good application of my new system resources ?
I have a lot of rock with active sponge life going.
Is this a good application of my new system resources ?
As I read Agu's posts, it sounds like the anemones do not require dedicated feeding. Agu suggests that their main food source is 'pods from the adjacent section, rather than any prepared food.
Agu also states that the mass of chaetomorpha at the top of the cryptic section blocks the majority of the light from penetrating below. If the space under a rock in the display tank can be considered a cryptic zone, I'd expect that a section of sump under a thick mat of chaeto could also be considered cryptic.
Finally, it's nit-picking, but I don't understand the use of the term "benthic" in this context at all.
Adult Echinophyllia: benthic. Adult Tridacna: benthic. Halimeda: benthic. All three are photosynthetic, and none are inhabitants of the cryptic zone. Why the word "benthic" should be used to distinguish critters in a dark area from critters in a lighted area is beyond me. It's not likely to set me off as badly as the gross abuse of the term "organic", but few things do.
DDT is an organic chemical. So is malathion. Nearly all the things that "organic" gardeners avoid are organic chemicals! Why on Earth would a philosophy of food production be named after the class of chemical compounds that contain carbon atoms, anyway?
OCEAN SIZE
BACK REEFIN'
Someone needs an "all-natural" beer.
Similar threads
