Dsb's work, what makes them work best?

[Amphiprionocellaris]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6573291#post6573291 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by barryhc

We need a sand bed, with a "model" system set-up, and a hundred probes in it, monitored for 2 to 4 years. ANYONE ? ? ?

You might be in luck. I'm setting up today a new 140 gallon reef in the biology building. One of the primary goals for this tank is research, and I intend to really take advantage of that goal. While it might not have a hundred probes in it, I have access to the right equipment to do proper testing. I also have access to one of the best Organic Chem professors in the nation (according to the award, anyway). If I get the chance, I will go talk to him; hopefully, he can shed some light on the subject.

I am also continuing to sift through primary literature on denitrification. Most of it is too wordy or has other goals besides aquariums. I hate to now rely soley on quoting others, but I simply don't know the subject well enough. I am trying to limit the papers I quote to abstracts and talks from major universities, so they should be pretty accurate.

 

[barryhc]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6573768#post6573768 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Amphiprionocellaris
You might be in luck. I'm setting up today a new 140 gallon reef in the biology building. One of the primary goals for this tank is research, and I intend to really take advantage of that goal.

Great Amphi, is there no end to the great fortune that you bring us ? ?

The 140 sounds like a great size for the investigation as well. Any chance that you could set-up a couple of one foot wide sections with a different particle distribution in one, and silica sand in the other?

God I'm pushy aren't I ? ?

I am also continuing to sift through primary literature on denitrification. Most of it is too wordy or has other goals besides aquariums.

The too wordy part might not be so bad, but I think you've hit on a particularly interesting point here, in that the "studies" that have been reviewed, and used in our discussions, are either not similar enough to a captive system, to help us along, or in the cases of aquarium oriented studies, most have had an agenda, or have been elsewise "tainted".

Thanks > Barry :beachbum: :thumbsup:

 

[Amphiprionocellaris]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6574024#post6574024 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by barryhc
The 140 sounds like a great size for the investigation as well. Any chance that you could set-up a couple of one foot wide sections with a different particle distribution in one, and silica sand in the other?

Well, the substrate is already down in the 140; I think they might have gotten a little suspicious if their "show" tank had a "quilted" bottom. However, in addition to commandeering this tank, I will also have "control" over a number of empty research tanks in the lab (55s). The way I will probably do the experiment with particle size and composition is to use the 140 as the "control" while the different 55s are the experimental tanks. I think that would be both easier and make better use of the lab's tanks. After all, a tank is a terrible thing to waste.

 

[barryhc]

That sounds like a good plan. Watch out for multiple variables though. Live rock, sand and animal "volumes", should be very similar, to avoid extraneous conclusions. Unfortunately, this could be held to include support sysyems, skimming, even lighting.

Ouch ! !

> Barry

 

[Amphiprionocellaris]

What I would probably do is run minimal man-made filtration on the tanks, then seed each sand bed with an equal amount of live sand (or other material) purchased or taken at the same time (from the same place, etc). There would also probably be minimal lighting, to save costs. The point would be to add as few things as possible besides the substrate. It needs some tweaking, I know, but it's a start.

 

[barryhc]

Now that it matters, it sounds like good science !

Keep us posted for sure. > Barry

ooPS: although some may call "foul", a cheap "floss filter" changed daily is not a bad approximation of a skimmer.

 

[barryhc]

DSB's work well, So, what makes them work best ? ? ?

Well, what is a DSB anyway ? I think it has 4 to 6" or more of substrate, and usually it is "SouthDown" or something similar.

What is it for ? I think we understand that it is for operating a "Reef aquarium", and this falls under three categories ( "save" the date and time here Curt ):

1 > NNR, this is most peoples intended result from utilizing DSB. Heaven forbid, some people think that it is their "filter".

DSB does a good job of NNR unless, or until it becomes "overloaded". Overloading is not a necessary eventuality of DSB, it just happens quite often because we "love" the animals.

2> Ecosystem, many people want the "ecosystem" either because they are convinced that it makes the sand bed "work", or because they like holding magnifying glasses. Some "feeding benefit is included here.

3> The "Sand Animals", some people want the environment that allows them to keep a wide variety of sand animals. In this case, the NNR, and Ecosystem, are secondary to just keeping the animals "happy". Some Ecosystem is required here depending on the particular animals.

And what makes a DSB "work" ?

> Sand. Mud too? geeze !

> Live Rock. Do we really want it "live", or should we "light starve" it first?

> High flow. How high is high ? :lol:

> Skimmer. Works well most of the time.

> Refugium. Grow some Cheato, and cook it up at your neighbors "Lobster Roast". Grow some pods, and let your fish "eat-um".

I think putting some animals in the tank helps quite a bit.

Feed sparingly until you have 4% body fat yourself.

Buy a Phosphate test kit and then throw it away when levels drop below .1ppm.

Only buy mushrooms and softies, until Uncle Albert takes you away in his Yellow Submarine.

Sorry guys, I tried to summarize, and then I had to tell the Truth.

> Barry

 

[inwall75]

What a riot!!!

 

[inwall75]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6573291#post6573291 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by barryhc
Do bacteria have carcasses? What are they made of?

Have I lost it yet?

Aren't bacteria a lot "faster" than this"? Aren't they going through a life cycle one or more times a day?

Yes, they do have carcusses and they are actually quite strong. It's called a sacculus. (No, I didn't remember that off the top of my head, I had to Google it). There is a large Calcium component to it as well as a number of things that we would call trace elements.

Different species of bacteria go through life cycles. For instance, the dangerous bacteria (at least to us) which would be Mycobacterium, typically only reproduces once per day. However, other species that solve a lot of our problems for us can do it as quickly as every 20 minutes.

The problem is that the chemists understand the processes, but can't say which "PATHWAYS" are being taken.

The problem is that it is not the simple Ammonia to nitrite to nitrate that we have been taught. There are waaaaay too many pathways that can happen and as we have learned, not all of them are desirable. (I.e. ammonification or Hydrogen sulphide production) and we really don't have a lot of choice in the matter.

 

[inwall75]

BTW, anyone who wants to dig into this really needs a copy of Coral Reef Ecology by Yuri Sorokin. It is very difficult to obtain. It easily took me 6 months to find a copy that I could afford. If mine wasn't packed away somewhere at the moment, I would be more help with these hard questions. I know MiddletonMark has a copy as well.

Most people wouldn't really desire this book. It is written by a scientist for scientists. It is not dumbed down at all and it is hard reading. I don't want to mislead anyone. If you don't know who he is. He's the grand daddy of our understanding of coral reefs. He's the person who figured out the role of bacteria in terms of coral food. If you want to understand the nitty gritty details of corals, sandbeds, plankton, the Nitrogen Cycle, bacteria, etc., then this is a good book for you.

Eric Borneman did a write up of some of his research on this link.
http://www.reefs.org/library/talklog/e_borneman_051098.html

Indeed, corals do actively feed on bacteria in the mucus, in the water, and attached to particulate matter. They typically utilize them for 5% of their diet, by weight. This is on an efficiency level on par with many of the specialized filter feeders and sponges. Sorokin found that, in general, bacterioplankton ingestion alone can provide from 8-25% of the coralââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢s respiratory demands. This amount is the equivlent of 1-10% of the animals total biomass per day...from bacterioplankton!! Its assimilation index by nutritional content is the equivalent to the nutrition acquired by the capture of small crustaceans (which are by weight, much greater and a greater energy expenditure to capture). Phosphorus, a normally limiting resource in coral reefs, is found in the cell walls of bacteria. Coral consumption of bacterioplankton provides them with a more easily assimilated source of phosphorous than from the uptake of inorganic phosphate contained in the water.

If you read the whole article, WHICH I HIGHLY RECOMMEND, you can hit [CTRL] F to pull up the "find" dialog box and punch in Sorokin. However, the whole article is based on his work. Eric really brushes over some things in it but there are some things that the boards rarely discuss, AEROBIC denitrification, the fact that there are more than 80 strains of bacteria doing things in our tank, etc. Just in the paragraph I paraphrased above, it shows that corals do not like to capture pods because of the energy expenditure....they like to capture bacteria in mucous nets. Not only that, they "farm and raise" bacteria for their food needs. These things are rarely discussed on the reef boards.

Here's how a bookstore describes the book

Coral reef communities are among the most complex, mature and productive ecosystems on earth. Their activity resulted in the creation of vast lime constructions. Being extremely productive and having the function of a powerful biofilter, coral reefs play an important role in global biogeochemical processes and in the reproduction of food resources in tropical marine regions. All aspects of coral reef science are covered systematically and on the basis of a holistic ecosystem approach. The geological history of coral reefs, their geomorphology as well as biology including community structure of reef biota, their functional characteristics, physiological aspects, biogeochemical metabolism, energy balance, environmental problems and management of resources are treated in detail.

Here's how a scientist I know describes the book

bacteria and microalgal interrelationships in benthic sediments and give a great deal of detail on the relationships of these nutrient cycles with theperiphytonic communities of algal turfs and pelagic bacterial and phytoplanktonic populations.

 

[barryhc]

It sounds like a good read to me, but I'm a glutton for punishment. Still Curt, does it include a good glossary etc. or do we need another book to get us through the terminology?

Thanks. > Barry :beachbum: :thumbsup:

 

[inwall75]

Google is your friend.

 

[barryhc]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6592925#post6592925 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by inwall75
Yes, they do have carcusses and they are actually quite strong. It's called a sacculus. There is a large Calcium component to it as well as a number of things that we would call trace elements.

Well, if our little buddies are living and dying and eating each other, AND leaving calcium and trace element "deposits" behind, then isn't this an important part of the eventual "sediment" make-up, that contributes to "concentration" build-ups, and clumping potentials ? ? heh ! :idea:

The problem is that it is not the simple Ammonia to nitrite to nitrate that we have been taught. There are waaaaay too many pathways that can happen and as we have learned, not all of them are desirable. (I.e. ammonification or Hydrogen sulphide production) and we really don't have a lot of choice in the matter.

I think that we can make "some" choice, if we become educated about the processes enough, and then proceed with some experimentation. I agree though that we can't just theorize, based on our education ( however good it is ), and then hand out a "solution". Many people want this, but the "magic bullet" remains a fictional construction in the JFK ordeal, now, and for some time to come.

Good info, keep it coming ! :thumbsup:

 

[barryhc]

I'm still reading the link that you supplied Curt, but I really like this part.

Perhaps surprisingly, mangroves are typically sources of limiting organic matter which are exported to the reef, rather than being consumers of it.

Isn't that interesting ? !

> Barry

 

[engagg]

Great Article!

Guess we should throw out the skimmers! Jk

But seriously, very interesting about all the starins of bacteria, looks like we need bacteria booster packs for the beds. This could be one of the limiting factors for dsb's and possibly the cause for some "crashes" or "failures".

I also had no idea that corals capture and eat so much bacteria on a daily basis, maybe we need to come up with some kind of bacteria reactor for feeding corals.:lol:

Greg

 

[inwall75]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6595601#post6595601 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by engagg
Great Article!

Guess we should throw out the skimmers! Jk

But seriously, very interesting about all the starins of bacteria, looks like we need bacteria booster packs for the beds. This could be one of the limiting factors for dsb's and possibly the cause for some "crashes" or "failures".

I also had no idea that corals capture and eat so much bacteria on a daily basis, maybe we need to come up with some kind of bacteria reactor for feeding corals.:lol:

Greg

LOL

Look at the date the article was written. Back then, Eric Borneman and Ron Shimek were actively encouraging people to run skimmerless so that all of the good food wouldn't be removed. Heck, people were even worried about something called "Overskimming" and there were a lot of threads where people worried that their skimmer might have been too big for their tank. Obviously, most people now utilize skimmers and the bigger the better IMO.

Actually, one of the best ways to feed corals is to have good flow. Fish waste and other waste is immediately attacked by bacteria and makes it's way to the corals. Additionally, motile bacteria will be pushed to the corals.

 

[inwall75]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6593709#post6593709 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by barryhc
I'm still reading the link that you supplied Curt, but I really like this part.

Perhaps surprisingly, mangroves are typically sources of limiting organic matter which are exported to the reef, rather than being consumers of it.

Isn't that interesting ? !

> Barry

Yeah, kind of throws the whole sandbeds in the lagoons and mangroves filter the reef and that's why reef are eutrophic argument right out the window doesn't it? Actually, Jerel was saying this for years but no one listened.

 

[inwall75]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6593449#post6593449 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by barryhc
Well, if our little buddies are living and dying and eating each other, AND leaving calcium and trace element "deposits" behind, then isn't this an important part of the eventual "sediment" make-up, that contributes to "concentration" build-ups, and clumping potentials ? ? heh ! :idea:

Most certainly. These materials do have an impact on on the sand. Additionally, not all Carbon is exported from a DSB. You will end up with Carbon Ash (or detrital mulm) that will also accumulate in the bottom of the tank if you overload your bed as time goes on.

 

[barryhc]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6605974#post6605974 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by inwall75
Most certainly. These materials do have an impact on on the sand. Additionally, not all Carbon is exported from a DSB. You will end up with Carbon Ash (or detrital mulm) that will also accumulate in the bottom of the tank if you overload your bed as time goes on.

Anything that accumulates at the bottom of the tank, would be good for "wasting", would it not ?

> Barry :beachbum:

 

[inwall75]

Correct. I hate to use the words "Fill Up" because it will attract trolls. However, overloading your sandbed (which a lot of people do) will cause this Carbon to collect in the bottom of the tank and the anaerobic portion of the bed gets bigger and the aerobic portion of the bed gets smaller. In that situation, a "Wasting Plenum" would be very useful for the long-term usefulness of a DSB.

NOTE: If this thread get's trolled, I will hit the "report this post to a moderator" button immediately.