Deep Sand Bed -- Anatomy & Terminology

[tmz]

Interestingly, our community is a little different from the norm. I don't believe that anyone in the reefing community here (at least to my knowledge) has a bare bottom or SSB. Every tank I know of has an internal DSB; and certainly there are problems, but I would argue that most are due to a lack of maintanence. I'll have to do some calculations on my oldest tank, which I believe is somewhere around the 10 year mark.

No that's not true. There are many aquariums these days with shallow sand beds and/or bare bottoms. I personally keep 8 of them.

My particular question at this point (and I apologize if it was previously answered somewhere deep inside the thread that I haven't gotten to yet) has to do with the production of the "toxic gases" within the DSB. Its always been my personal opinion that the need for 4" to 6" of sand was provided as more of a safeguard against the impulse buyer and eager beaver aquarist. While 2" to 3" may provide enough SB for removal of nitrates, the likelyhood of the aquarist or burrowing fish disturbing the sandbed enough to release the toxic gases is greatly increased, and IMO is one of the great contributers to the "case" of the crashing DSB. With 6" of sand, with the exception of a few of most active burrowers, it is nearly impossible to disturb the sand to that depth.


Anoxia( no nitrate and no oxygen) is more likely in the deeper sand where flow is reduced. It can occur at any depth if there is no nitrate or oxygen provided by water exchange or even when a little oxygen or nitrate gets there it may be used up rapidly by the denitrifiers setting the stage for the sulfate reducers which need an organic carbon source and then use the O in sulfate SO4 for energy producing hydrogen sulfide as a by prioduct.. It's a problem if some organic carbon is also present to support the sulfate reducing bacteria , say from decaying material on a buried rock or some other source. I've removed several deep beds not seeded with infauna to find only damp clean sand in the deep sections which indicates that not much of anything got down there .

An inch or two of sand does quite well ,ime.

 

[tmz]

I am very used to it and I usually have the self control to stay out of it. Just a pet peeve and I probably hadn't had my weekly fill of debate.

Longfellow ,
Stay with it respectful debate is helpful. BTW, following your advice to keep asking why, I'd advise anyone contemplating a dsb to ask:

Why do I need 4+ inches of sand that I must keep live and periodically replace incrementally without disturbing the bed and risking releasing some toxic substance(s).?


and:
Are there other methods to balance import and export of nutrients worthy of equal consideration?

 

[Paul B]

I just shut down my DSB a few months ago. It was in use for just shy of 20 years.

Thats one, Dam I hope there are not 3 more of these or I will have to re think my entire post, :fun2: Nice work Elegance.

This discussion (on the Noob forum) is actually turning out very nice.

LOL; we shut down our last UG filter system only a couple of years ago.

Well thats good, I don't want too much competition.

 

[elegance coral]

Thats one, Dam I hope there are not 3 more of these or I will have to re think my entire post, :fun2: Nice work Elegance.

Mine doesn't really count though. I didn't just leave it on the bottom of the tank and allow it to fill with rot and decay. I think your statements are safe in regards to Shemik sand beds.

 

[Paul B]

Well thank God, thanks Elegance.

 

[longfellowship]

As a self proclaimed "scientist" you must understand how meaningless this statement is. If what I wrote is "inaccurate" then show how it is inaccurate. Anyone can say that someone else is wrong. It doesn't mean anything unless you can show how that person is wrong. I have stated that Shemik's views on sand beds is wrong. I've pointed out flaws in his theory, explained why they don't work like he claims, and gave examples of what truly takes place when his methods are used. It would be meaningless if I said he was wrong just because I said so.

Copied from my original post:

"Physics (while still valid in this case) is not the appropriate science to reference. Ecology and Marine Biology would be better. . .

Regarding Physics, a simple reading of some of Dr. Shimek's most basic works tells the full story. Yes every animal that consumes poo also makes it. But they consume some energy along the way and export it in many ways. Some of it is released as CO2, some is put into the nitogen cycle. The nitrogen cycle must end in export of some kind of course. In the case of a DSB you will see N2 bubbles coming up out of the sand and to the surface and into surrounding air. JUST LIKE IN NATURE. The other forms of nutrient export that Dr. Shimek advocates is macro and foam fractionation (protein skimmer). A well functioning DSB will have 0ppm nutrient readings without much work."


When I studied Ecology in school (I am a Chemist BTW) long before I knew of a Dr. Shimek, I was taught that the food web has many layers and while the "elements" C,O,N,P,H, and S do get pushed around, the nutrients do not. Nutrients are used and converted to another form. In the aquarium the N (and to some degree O and C though they can be in equilibrium) gets removed by N2 gas escape, and the rest are removed through bacterial films in the skimmer and macroalgae export. The reason that this happens so much more efficiently in the DSB versus other methods is that it is structured much closer to nature. Every layer of the food web breaks down what it was designed to, into smaller particles and simpler forms.


Regarding doing my own research, that is what I'm doing. There are two types of research, field research of the type Dr. Shimek and others do, and secondary research that relies on the data of primary sources. Since I'm not an ecologist, I'm limited to the second which is every bit as much science. If you want to convince me of anything besides you having an opinion, you could show me primary sources that shed new light on Dr. Shimek's work. Since I have looked hard and haven't found anything of the sort, but instead only slander, I'll follow science over slander.

JD

 

[tmz]

I agree that nutrients will breakdown due to bacterial activity and shifting of CNPOHand S will occur. Nitrate reduction can occur by consumption of the N and O for protein development or via anaerobic respiration to N2 .

I think the focus should be on how to maintain bacterial colonies beneficial to the reef chemistry of a system as measured by NO3 and PO4 levels near natural seawater values. I'd add C( total organic carbon ) too but we can't measure that without a $50,000 for an analyzer.

I do not agree that a deep sand bed is the best way to achieve this condition in the long run, given the problems with the dynamics of water and nutrient movement through the sand as well as the potential for problems related to anoxic conditions.. These problems can be overcome to varying degrees by careful maintenance and the life of the bed can be extended but an old clogged or clumped sand bed poses a risk.imo. It is less so with a shallow bed.

There is a study more recent than Dr Shimek's work cited in this thread several times that showed denitrification occured as well in shallow beds of an inch or less as did in deep beds. Of course there were no infuana in these tanks and the tanks with deeper beds may have performed better if there were but ithe study did show that a deep bed wasn't necessary for the aerobic respiration and denitrification.

I don't buy the more natural argument because tanks are not oceans and I don't see a 4+ inch bed of aragonite with some rock piled on it as more natural than other arrangements . When it comes down to it I don't think we can replicate how the ocean works. The massive water exchanges alone make this proposition unrealistic . As for diversity of fauna much can be acheived with shallow beds , macroalgae refugia and or crpytc zones of live rock as examples of alternatives.

 

[longfellowship]

I am very used to it and I usually have the self control to stay out of it. Just a pet peeve and I probably hadn't had my weekly fill of debate.

Longfellow ,
Stay with it respectful debate is helpful. BTW, following your advice to keep asking why, I'd advise anyone contemplating a dsb to ask:

Why do I need 4+ inches of sand that I must keep live and periodically replace incrementally without disturbing the bed and risking releasing some toxic substance(s).?


and:
Are there other methods to balance import and export of nutrients worthy of equal consideration?

Good questions that deserve an answer.

For me it is a manyfold answer.

I actually like watching all the layers of life at work, its fascinating to me and a great microcosm of nature.

The cost of my setup was very reasonable in comparison to many methods and equipment.

I can spend my time watching and enjoying all the inhabitants of my tank (nothing but snails and bugs right now) instead of siphoning and scrubbing (at least not as much).

I love to watch the fluctuating balance of species interaction on a more complex level than is available if you are constantly removing species by siphoning and mechanical filtration.

The chances of this DSB having to last for more than 5 years are almost 0 as I will be moving before then.

A remote DSB system with at least two buckets that I could replace/rotate on a yearly basis is interesting to me, but I don't have the room on my current setup.

ATS is also interesting to me, but controversial in itself. I may do a trial of it in conjunction with the DSB.

I love working outside of the mainstream and using my brain instead of my wallet, its one of the main reasons I'm in the hobby as it offers a more than a degree's worth of knowledge to explore.

I love complexity that offers a challenge to understand, yet doesn't have to be complex in implementation.

JD

 

[longfellowship]

There is a study more recent than Dr Shimek's work cited in this thread several times that showed denitrification occured as well in shallow beds of an inch or less as did in deep beds. Of course there were no infuana in these tanks and the tanks with deeper beds may have performed better if there were but ithe study did show that a deep bed wasn't necessary for the aerobic respiration and denitrification.

I'm familiar with the study. It is a short term test that is based on limited bio-load. More surface area = more denitrification, provided that there is sufficient worm burrows to move the nutrients. I know many people with shallow sand beds who have nitrate problems. I don't want to starve my tank either to have to match my food to my denitrifying capacity. I know all of the DSB fauna add some load, but not as much as they provide means to process. Besides, I enjoy having them around for their own sake.

I don't buy the more natural argument because tanks are not oceans and I don't see a 4+ inch bed of aragonite with some rock piled on it as more natural than other arrangements . When it comes down to it I don't think we can replicate how the ocean works. The massive water exchanges alone make this proposition unrealistic.

They may not be perfect analogs but they can be close enough to learn from and experience a little of how nature works. Consider for example, biomass ratios. A DSB is the only thing that comes close to offering a tutorial on how nature works.

As for diversity of fauna much can be acheived with shallow beds , macroalgae refugia and or crpytc zones of live rock as examples of alternatives.

Token individuals of species don't count as biodiversity. Biodiversity is about more than the number of species present. Are their numbers sufficient to perform their natural role? In nature biodiversity helps ecological systems recover from fluctuations and disturbances. I've seen well run DSB's that do the same. What every hobbyist is trying to avoid is stress to their livestock from new additions, disease, death of a tank mate, etc. I believe a DSB offers more stability than most systems because it has true biodiversity. I think of ecological systems as not too different than our own body. We have millions of enzymes and other types of "species" at different levels and feedback mechanisms designed to adapt to every change. Taking out "keystone species" would kill us pretty quickly. The same is true for natural ecosystems and biodiversity. To a lesser extent it is true in our tanks. Thankfully, its a little more forgiving than the system of our bodies.

JD

 

[Paul B]

you could show me primary sources that shed new light on Dr. Shimek's work.

The Dr, does not have an old tank does he?

I believe a DSB offers more stability than most systems because it has true biodiversity.

I don't think so, as I said, a DSB has some diversity in the beginning but that rapidly falls off. Most of the area of a DSB is practically devoid of oxygen severly limiting the biodiversity except for a while in the upper layers. For biodiversity my system (a RUGF) would offer vastly more diversity because most of it is bathed in oxygen all through it's mass.

I love working outside of the mainstream and using my brain instead of my wallet,

Me also, my system is probably the cheapest one here and the least maintenance for the time it is running.

The reason that this happens so much more efficiently in the DSB versus other methods is that it is structured much closer to nature.

IMO, a DSB is very far from natural. Especially on a reef, I have spent many hours underwater and quite a bit after hurricaines and typhoons. These occurances happen very frequently in the tropics and the botton gets severly roiled much deeper than our traditional sand DSBs. I have seen storms so severe that brain corals as large as my car were ripped from their bases and deposited many yards away. I was not underwater during these events but I would imagine that if the storm was severe enough to up root a 2,000lb coral, it would have no problem moving the sand around more than a few inches deep.
That is probably why the sea does not crash, it is dynamic, not static like a captive reef.
In enclosed bays and harbors there is a DSB much like in our tanks, I visit one every day in the summer where I keep my boat. The water never gets rough and the sand bottom has not been disturbed. In this area, if you dig down about 1/4", you will find hydrogen sulfide. The entire bay is loaded with it but it remains un disturbed as long as you don't touch it. This bay, like all similar bays, lagoons and inlets that are not affected by much water movement act just like a DSB.
If it were not for the tides replacing the water in these areas, nothing would live there as some of the hydrogen sulfide I am sure does escape.
How long would a DSB remain un touched here?
This is Long Island near my home on a normal day but typhoons and hurricaines are many times stronger.

 

[longfellowship]

The Dr, does not have an old tank does he?

Eric Borneman, an author friendly to Dr. Shimek has a Shimek style tank that is over twenty years old from my understanding. Except I believe he has been running it skimmerless for several years now. I think the Dr. is like myself and likes to "rearange the furniture" every several years.

For biodiversity my system (a RUGF) would offer vastly more diversity because most of it is bathed in oxygen all through it's mass.

Perhaps if you left them some food and didn't vacuum them up from time to time this might be true.

IMO, a DSB is very far from natural. Especially on a reef, I have spent many hours underwater and quite a bit after hurricaines and typhoons. These occurances happen very frequently in the tropics and the botton gets severly roiled much deeper than our traditional sand DSBs. I have seen storms so severe that brain corals as large as my car were ripped from their bases and deposited many yards away. I was not underwater during these events but I would imagine that if the storm was severe enough to up root a 2,000lb coral, it would have no problem moving the sand around more than a few inches deep.
That is probably why the sea does not crash, it is dynamic, not static like a captive reef.
In enclosed bays and harbors there is a DSB much like in our tanks, I visit one every day in the summer where I keep my boat. The water never gets rough and the sand bottom has not been disturbed. In this area, if you dig down about 1/4", you will find hydrogen sulfide. The entire bay is loaded with it but it remains un disturbed as long as you don't touch it. This bay, like all similar bays, lagoons and inlets that are not affected by much water movement act just like a DSB.
If it were not for the tides replacing the water in these areas, nothing would live there as some of the hydrogen sulfide I am sure does escape.
How long would a DSB remain un touched here?
This is Long Island near my home on a normal day but typhoons and hurricaines are many times stronger.

Good points. This underlies the need for disturbance and not stagnation. Perhaps a 7 year storm is a good recipe for a success by redoing the sand bed every 7 years. (Changing flow directions, rearranging tank, and using a surge tank if possible are great ideas also.) However, in the reef system I believe you will see the function of its DSB returned within a week. I would assume the disturbance causes death for many inhabitants, but that is nature. I'll try to be a little more careful than your typhoon when that time comes. The fauna that Dr. Shimek tauts are proven reef inhabitants.

The anoxic nature of your bay example has much more to do with particle size than the lack of typhoons. Of course the lack of typhoons and slow flow rates will lead to very small particle sizes being deposited. Fortunately we can select particle size when constructing our DSB.

JD

 

[longfellowship]

Paul,

A little off topic but I'm assuming from your sig and your picture that you use NSW for your water changes. I envy you as I am inland and can't do that. This could be a great contributor to your UGF working so good for you for so many years.

 

[Paul B]

Eric Borneman, an author friendly to Dr. Shimek has a Shimek style tank

Yes I am sure Eric has no problem keeping a tank long term.

Perhaps if you left them some food and didn't vacuum them up from time to time this might be true.

That is true and I do do that. I want multitudes of creatures living in my gravel. When I feed the tank I see arms sticking out from every crevace and the amphipods that are breeding in there seem to be under every piece of gravel. I love the diversity and watch these tiny creatures more than I watch the things we pay for.

A little off topic but I'm assuming from your sig and your picture that you use NSW for your water changes.

I do use a portion of NSW, sometimes I take it right from this beach I pictured (on calmer days) If it were not so heavy, I would use nothing else.
I do many times collect mud for the bacteria and lift rocks on muddy beaches in lagoons for the microfauna. I collect this by swirling the rocks in a bucket of water.
After I remove the crabs, sea squirts, jelly fish etc, I dump this in my tank.
I can't be sure if that has helped or hurt the tank. I do know that much of that life is still in there multiplying but most of it probably dies.

This could be a great contributor to your UGF working so good for you for so many years.

The UG filter I run is run much different than they are generally run. If you run a UG filter the way we used to run them in fresh water it will crash in about a year or so. That is the reason they fell out of favor. It is a great system, but it was used incorrectly in salt water. I strain the water through a sponge then inject it under the UG filter very slowly. With this method, there become areas that are deficient in oxygen. Detritus sees to that. Anytime you pump water through gravel eventually it will start to clog but not completely. I usualy make an analogy by visualizing a wall made of rocks with T Shirts stuck between the rocks. The water will still get through but not very fast. I believe my RUGF run this way also reduces nitrates while having a great capacity to process biological material like if a large carpet anemone does or if 24 sea urchins all spawn at the same time. Both of these events happened in my tank and nothing happened. The power went off for 5 days also and nothing happened.
It seems very hard to crash such a tank as it has never crashed.
To keep with nature I do often cause a typhoon. For this system to work long term it must be maintained. I use a diatom filter with a restriction on the outflow hose and powerwash the rocks and stir the gravel right down to the filter plate. I do this where I can reach a couple of times a year and every few years I move the rocks to do a better job.
In the Army they teach you maintenance as your life may depend in it, a reef tank also depends on it for it's life and if you can't maintain it, it will die.
Nothing lives for long without maintenance.

 

[elegance coral]

Copied from my original post:

"Physics (while still valid in this case) is not the appropriate science to reference. Ecology and Marine Biology would be better. . .

You have to read the whole post. This is a quote from me in that post. "(simple physics) If you add something, like food, to a container, it will always be in that container until it is removed." This is simple physics that Shemik's methods defy. You even state that physics is "still valid in this case", so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make by posting this again.

Yes every animal that consumes poo also makes it. But they consume some energy along the way and export it in many ways. Some of it is released as CO2, some is put into the nitogen cycle.

This process does not remove anything from the system. Yes, all life takes in nutrients and obtains energy from it. Then they discharges waste that other oranisms use as nutrients to obtain energy. Then they discharge waste and the process continues. At no point in this process are the nutirents removed. They are simply passed from one organism to another.

The nitrogen cycle must end in export of some kind of course.

This is a "cycle". There is no "end". There is no begining either.
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...a=X&ei=l-H-TMLVLYKB8gbFr_GACA&ved=0CCIQ9QEwAQ

In the case of a DSB you will see N2 bubbles coming up out of the sand and to the surface and into surrounding air. JUST LIKE IN NATURE.

And where do you see this in nature? You see it in stagnant, faul smelling, swamps. Not in prestine, low nutrient, coral reef habitats.

The other forms of nutrient export that Dr. Shimek advocates is macro and foam fractionation (protein skimmer). A well functioning DSB will have 0ppm nutrient readings without much work."

With a little experience, you will learn that a 0ppm nutrient reading is meaningless if your tank is covered in nuesence algae, and your stony corals won't grow. Organisms like hair algae and bacteria can cycle nutrients so tightly that little is left to show up on tests done on the open water of the system.

Another big problem wilth this line of thinking is, that if a system has low nutrient readings, it is not evedince that a particular componant of the system is the cause. This is rubber ducky science. If I float a rubber ducky in my tank and the tank does well, is that proof that the rubber ducky was the cause of my good fortune? Absolutly not. In a system like you describe, the skimmer and macro algae harvesting are the tools that remove nutrients from the system. Not the Shemik sand bed. For a time, the skimmer and algae may remove enough of the nutrients that are being released by the decomposition in the sand to keep the system healthy. As the rotting organic matter builds in the sand, the skimmer and algae will have a much harder time keeping up. This is when most people see there animals dieing and nucience algae taking over. Remove the cesspool and the problem goes away.

When I studied Ecology in school (I am a Chemist BTW) long before I knew of a Dr. Shimek, I was taught that the food web has many layers and while the "elements" C,O,N,P,H, and S do get pushed around, the nutrients do not. Nutrients are used and converted to another form.

What you just said make absolutly no sense. You list some nutrients and admit that they get "pushed around", then state that nutrients do not. Here's a link that may help you out.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...t&sa=X&ei=UOf-TKX2DsG78gawpvmOBw&ved=0CBMQkAE

In the aquarium the N (and to some degree O and C though they can be in equilibrium) gets removed by N2 gas escape,

In the Shemik sand bed, one of the "infauna" is cyanobacteria. He even takes the time to point them out in the photos of his system. One of the reasons cyanobacteria have been so successful, for so long, is their ability to fix N2. So, what's going to happen to the N2 that is produced deep in his sand bed when it has to run the gauntlate of cyanobacteria to reach the surface and gas off? That's right. A great portion of it doesn't make it to the surface. The cyanobacteria capture it and return it to the nitrogen cycle where it is traped within the system. Doesn't sound like a very efficient process to remove nitrogen from the system to me.

The reason that this happens so much more efficiently in the DSB versus other methods is that it is structured much closer to nature.

Because something is "structured much closer to nature" does not mean it fits in with what we are trying to accomplish. Nature is very diverse with many different habitats. Most organisms are not interchangable between these habitats. Shemik's method takes aspects of mangrove swamps, grass flats, and the abyssal plain, then applies it to tropical coral reefs. Sure, sediments full of rotting organic matter are part of nature. So is red tide, but I don't want it in my system.

Regarding doing my own research, that is what I'm doing. There are two types of research, field research of the type Dr. Shimek and others do, and secondary research that relies on the data of primary sources. Since I'm not an ecologist, I'm limited to the second which is every bit as much science. If you want to convince me of anything besides you having an opinion, you could show me primary sources that shed new light on Dr. Shimek's work. Since I have looked hard and haven't found anything of the sort, but instead only slander, I'll follow science over slander.
JD

I don't want you to take my word for anything, any more than I want you to take his. I hope you do the research for yourself so you can see how flawed his system is. You are/or will be caring for some very environmentally sensitive creatures. If you blindly fallow his practices, you will see your animals suffer. Just like sooooooooo many others befor you.

 

[longfellowship]

You have to read the whole post. This is a quote from me in that post. "(simple physics) If you add something, like food, to a container, it will always be in that container until it is removed." This is simple physics that Shemik's methods defy. You even state that physics is "still valid in this case", so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make by posting this again.





This process does not remove anything from the system. Yes, all life takes in nutrients and obtains energy from it. Then they discharges waste that other oranisms use as nutrients to obtain energy. Then they discharge waste and the process continues. At no point in this process are the nutirents removed. They are simply passed from one organism to another.



This is a "cycle". There is no "end". There is no begining either.
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...a=X&ei=l-H-TMLVLYKB8gbFr_GACA&ved=0CCIQ9QEwAQ




And where do you see this in nature? You see it in stagnant, faul smelling, swamps. Not in prestine, low nutrient, coral reef habitats.



With a little experience, you will learn that a 0ppm nutrient reading is meaningless if your tank is covered in nuesence algae, and your stony corals won't grow. Organisms like hair algae and bacteria can cycle nutrients so tightly that little is left to show up on tests done on the open water of the system.

Another big problem wilth this line of thinking is, that if a system has low nutrient readings, it is not evedince that a particular componant of the system is the cause. This is rubber ducky science. If I float a rubber ducky in my tank and the tank does well, is that proof that the rubber ducky was the cause of my good fortune? Absolutly not. In a system like you describe, the skimmer and macro algae harvesting are the tools that remove nutrients from the system. Not the Shemik sand bed. For a time, the skimmer and algae may remove enough of the nutrients that are being released by the decomposition in the sand to keep the system healthy. As the rotting organic matter builds in the sand, the skimmer and algae will have a much harder time keeping up. This is when most people see there animals dieing and nucience algae taking over. Remove the cecpool and the problem goes away.




What you just said make absolutly no sense. You list some nutrients and admit that they get "pushed around", then state that nutrients do not. Here's a link that may help you out.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...t&sa=X&ei=UOf-TKX2DsG78gawpvmOBw&ved=0CBMQkAE



In the Shemik sand bed, one of the "infauna" is cyanobacteria. He even takes the time to point them out in the photos of his system. One of the reasons cyanobacteria have been so successful, for so long, is their ability to fix N2. So, what's going to happen to the N2 that is produced deep in his sand bed when it has to run the gontlate of cyanobacteria to reach the surface and gas off? That's right. A great portion of it doesn't make it to the surface. The cyanobacteria capture it and return it to the nitrogen cycle where it is traped within the system. Doesn't sound like a very efficient process to remove nitrogen from the system to me.

The reason that this happens so much more efficiently in the DSB versus other methods is that it is structured much closer to nature.

Because something is "structured much closer to nature" does not mean it fits in with what we are trying to accomplish. Nature is very diverse with many different habitats. Most organisms are not interchangable between these habitats. Shemik's method takes aspects of mangrove swamps, grass flats, and the abisal plane, then applies it to tropical coral reefs. Sure, sediments full of rotting organic matter are part of nature. So is red tide, but I don't want it in my system.




I don't want you to take my word for anything, any more than I want you to take his. I hope you do the research for yourself so you can see how flaud his system is. You are/or will be caring for some very environmentaly sensitive creatures. If you blindly fallow his practices, you will see your animals suffer. Just like sooooooooo many others befor you.

Blindly following refers to following someone who doesn't back up what they say with documented research.

Pushing nutrients around is different than NO3 being transformed into N2 and O2 which most would not consider nutrients. Fixed nutrients being removed with export methods is not pushing it around. I know of nobody who advocates a DSB alone.

Cyano needs light and should be kept under control by the fauna that lives in the light reaching regions. Shimek is clear that cyano blooms should not be a constant feature.

 

[elegance coral]

Eric Borneman, an author friendly to Dr. Shimek has a Shimek style tank that is over twenty years old from my understanding.

JD[/QUOTE]

Borenman's tank crashed several years ago.

 

[longfellowship]

Yes I am sure Eric has no problem keeping a tank long term.


That is true and I do do that. I want multitudes of creatures living in my gravel. When I feed the tank I see arms sticking out from every crevace and the amphipods that are breeding in there seem to be under every piece of gravel. I love the diversity and watch these tiny creatures more than I watch the things we pay for.



I do use a portion of NSW, sometimes I take it right from this beach I pictured (on calmer days) If it were not so heavy, I would use nothing else.
I do many times collect mud for the bacteria and lift rocks on muddy beaches in lagoons for the microfauna. I collect this by swirling the rocks in a bucket of water.
After I remove the crabs, sea squirts, jelly fish etc, I dump this in my tank.
I can't be sure if that has helped or hurt the tank. I do know that much of that life is still in there multiplying but most of it probably dies.



The UG filter I run is run much different than they are generally run. If you run a UG filter the way we used to run them in fresh water it will crash in about a year or so. That is the reason they fell out of favor. It is a great system, but it was used incorrectly in salt water. I strain the water through a sponge then inject it under the UG filter very slowly. With this method, there become areas that are deficient in oxygen. Detritus sees to that. Anytime you pump water through gravel eventually it will start to clog but not completely. I usualy make an analogy by visualizing a wall made of rocks with T Shirts stuck between the rocks. The water will still get through but not very fast. I believe my RUGF run this way also reduces nitrates while having a great capacity to process biological material like if a large carpet anemone does or if 24 sea urchins all spawn at the same time. Both of these events happened in my tank and nothing happened. The power went off for 5 days also and nothing happened.
It seems very hard to crash such a tank as it has never crashed.
To keep with nature I do often cause a typhoon. For this system to work long term it must be maintained. I use a diatom filter with a restriction on the outflow hose and powerwash the rocks and stir the gravel right down to the filter plate. I do this where I can reach a couple of times a year and every few years I move the rocks to do a better job.
In the Army they teach you maintenance as your life may depend in it, a reef tank also depends on it for it's life and if you can't maintain it, it will die.
Nothing lives for long without maintenance.

I'm ready to call a truce as my original ire has worn off. That doesn't mean you've won, it means that I wish to change the subject as I'm tiring of the drama.:mixed: I'm better at learning than arguing anyway.

I think your system sounds innovative and I've thought of something similar, but for someone who has no experience there's no literature and who do you trust. I couldn't live with doing everything just like anybody says as I always have to find a better way. It sounds like you and I have that in common. BTW my grand master plan right now (which will change I'm sure) is to play around with different maintenance schedules maybe similar to yours even if Dr. Shimek doesn't approve, I just plan on starting slowly with small areas and see what happens. I already have plans in my head for an ATS to try and supplement the system. (my primary reason is that I want to turn off the skimmer and ATS seems like its worth a try and cheap.)

I will say that the performance of your system is my goal and I wouldn't mind learning from your success. I am wondering how in the world your tank didn't crash without power. How did your creatures get oxygen?

 

[longfellowship]

JD

Borenman's tank crashed several years ago.[/QUOTE]

could you point to a thread that tells of this or where you got this info

 

[Paul B]

I'm ready to call a truce as my original ire has worn off. That doesn't mean you've won, it means that I wish to change the subject as I'm tiring of the drama. I'm better at learning than arguing anyway.

Longfellowship, there is no need of a truce as there is no argument, no one won and no one ever will. This is a normal discussion by "hobbiests" on a friendly forum who just happen to have different ways to do things to reach the same goal. This is what I mentioned in the beginning, It is not an exact science and all the methods mentioned have merits. They also have downfalls and thats where the problems come in as to which system has fewer problems, less maintenance, healthier conditions and a capacity to overcome tragedies.
Too many variables. I like my system, Elegance likes his, Dr. Schmeck likes his, they all work and all have problems.
Don't feel anyone here is argueing with you, we enjoy the debate and it has been going on for years. There are hundreds of pages here on the same exact thing, just search for DSB or substraits. So you did not win or lose just participated in a debate that will hopefully teach some people a few things and confuse others:crazy1:

I am wondering how in the world your tank didn't crash without power. How did your creatures get oxygen?

In the 40 years my reef has been set up the power has gone off dozens of times. I never lost an animal. I presume because it is gravel and not sand whatever creatures are living in the substrait could just crawl up through the gravel to the surface where there is more oxygen. Also, there will always be some circulation and oxygen through gravel as long as there is some oxygen in the tank. (albeit very little but enough to keep the fish alive) My gravel is full of tiny tube worms, maybe some of them towards the bottom died but I have no way of knowing.
I didn't feed the inhabitants during these episodes and whenever I could I would remove 5 gallons of water and dump it back in just to provide some oxygen and circulation.
Remember, just about no one here runs a RUGF like I do, it is known that it just can't work.
But I would need a scientist to figure it out
Have a great day.
Paul

 

[longfellowship]

Preferrably a crash that has something to do with a dsb; not potential sabotage, massive power outage from a hurricane, or an out of town ac failure in TX. These just point to the fact that regardless of setup one has to be lucky or rich or both to not have crashes of some sort over a long period.

JD