EcoSystems

[elegance coral]

I'll say this. As a personal friend of Leng Sy, I have spent a lot of time at his headquarters and seen his tanks. They do look pretty darn good.

I understand the desire to defend your friend, but it's kinda hard to do when your friend is selling "mud" to be placed in a glass box with animals that prosper in clean environments. Especially after we've read the analysis of what he's really selling.

I have used Miracle Mud in the past and it acts like a remote DSB. Like any DSB methodology, one must change the substrate once it's saturated.

So, it's basically a system to mimic a DSB, it's not horsepucky or snake oil, it does work.

It "does work" at what? What does it do?

It doesn't matter if you call it a DSB, Miracle Mud, or anything else. If we employ a method that traps and holds nutrients within the system, it is counter productive to providing the inhabitants with a clean, healthy, and nutrient poor environment to live in.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

It doesn't matter if you call it a DSB, Miracle Mud, or anything else. If we employ a method that traps and holds nutrients within the system, it is counter productive to providing the inhabitants with a clean, healthy, and nutrient poor environment to live in.

Several parts of that sentence are opinions (IMO)

It may very well be correct, but I've never seen any study that actually showed the net release of problematic nutrients from a sand bed of any sort.

You assume in your opinion that such release is "unhealthy". You might be focussing on certain corals to give that opinion, but it is unlikely to apply to all organisms we keep.

One operative word is missing from your sentence. "traps and holds nutrients" does not actually say any is released. Trapping and holding is, I think you'd agree, fine, if no release takes place. Is there a net release of nitrogen from such a sand bed? Maybe, maybe not.

Finally, whether trapping detritus is a "problem" depends on what else might happen to that detritus. If it is skimmed or otherwise removed, then I agree it will probably cause more released nutrients (at least phosphate). If it just settles out somewhere else, then the difference may be moot.

 

[thebanker]

I understand the desire to defend your friend, but it's kinda hard to do when your friend is selling "mud" to be placed in a glass box with animals that prosper in clean environments. Especially after we've read the analysis of what he's really selling.



It "does work" at what? What does it do?

It doesn't matter if you call it a DSB, Miracle Mud, or anything else. If we employ a method that traps and holds nutrients within the system, it is counter productive to providing the inhabitants with a clean, healthy, and nutrient poor environment to live in.

Look man I'm not trying to sell you the darn mud. It simply functions as a substrate where nitrifying and denitrifying biofilms can develop. I know you want to think it doesn't do anything good, but it (anecdotally) dropped nitrates in my tank within about 3 months of use. I've seen it help other aquarists with nitrate issues too.

MM is like those blocks of calcium they sell to dissolve in people's tanks. The advanced aquarist would scoff at such an approach, but the casual hobbyist may see it as a simple solution to prolong time between maintenance.

It may release iron, which would be good for various macro algaes. I don't know this for sure. I've certainly read the elemental analysis, but that doesn't tell anyone what it may or may not release into the water.

 

[Flanders]

It's not about how "resilient" these animals can be. It's about providing them with a habitat they can grow and flourish in. We want our corals to grow, prosper, and be with us for years to come. For that, they need clean, healthy, nutrient poor, environments. Not nutrient laden swamps.

I am no fan of the mud, but you are misrepresenting the mud at least as much as the makers of the mud!

The point of it is not to create a nutrient-laden swamp in your aquarium. The point is to grow macroalgae to export nutrients to avoid said swamplike conditions.

So what if it does become a nutrient sink? If your aquarium contains a nutrient sink that fills up and is periodically replaced, as is recommended with the mud, that is helping to create a nutrient poor environment. Not a swamp.

 

[elegance coral]

Several parts of that sentence are opinions (IMO)

I can see that. If you have a good imagination.

It may very well be correct, but I've never seen any study that actually showed the net release of problematic nutrients from a sand bed of any sort.

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://...414893&usg=AFQjCNHLTbKIUK89peAoFNKQAmAnU6pfOg

http://www.google.com/url?url=http:...iments&usg=AFQjCNEadoN5p-j75TH1byVeEUhXSPO8aQ

http://www.ozcoasts.gov.au/indicators/sediment_org_matter.jsp


There is absolutly no question as to weather or not nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus are released from sediments. The fact that we're alive to talk about it is proof that nutrients are released from sediments. The net release will vary greatly from habitate to habitat, season to season, composition of the sediments, and even in samples taken from feet or inches apart, so it's hard to quantify.

In our systems where inorganic sedimentation is very very very low, and organic sedimentation is very high, the release of nutrients like nitrogen and
phosphorus from sediments will be very high. The rate of decomposition will be highest near the surface of our sediments where oranic particulate matter, and oxygen levels are at their highest.

We typically feed at a rate that exceeds the rate of decomposition. In other words, before one feeding has the time to break down, we feed again. This means that without our intervention, the amount of rotting organic matter within the system increases with time. Thanks to gravity, and the simple laws of physics, the majority, or at least a large portion, of this rotting organic matter ends up in/on the sediments. When a system like Shemik's DSB is emploied, our intervention is prohibited. According to the proper management of his methods, we're not permited to manually go in and remove this rotting organic matter. With Leng Sy's Miracle Mud, we are advised to manually remove the sediments, along with the rotting organic matter it contains, but only after six months to a year of organic matter accumulation.

When organic matter accumulats and rotts, the nutrients it contains, like nitrogen and phosphorus, are converted into liquid form, and released into the
surounding environment. If we don't manually go in and remove this rotting organic matter, our sediments become little more than a fertilizer plant constantly pumping out nutrients.

You assume in your opinion that such release is "unhealthy". You might be focussing on certain corals to give that opinion, but it is unlikely to apply to all organisms we keep.

You are correct. If we look at the photos Ivans75 posted, the only coral I see that has its polyps extended appears to be xenxa, or at least some form of octocoral. IMHO, this is due to the nutrient level in the water, where these corals are kept.

We disscussed earlier in this thread how the organisms living on reefs change as nutrient levels change. This is true throughout nature.
When a coral reef goes from being a healthy, growing, reef, to one that is in decline, the organisms living there change. Stony corals become less abundant, and sponges, sea fans, and algae become more abundant. We keep a wide variety of organisms in this hobby that thrive under different nutrient levels. We typically don't have a problem providing our systems with enough nutrients though. The common problem in our systems is keeping nutrient levels low enough. As I said before, check the number of algae problem threads on this site, and that becomes clear.

Those organisms we typically keep that prosper with higher nutrients than stony corals, still have their upper limit. Just as on the reef, the organisms we keep successfully, change as nutrient levels change. If we employ a system like Shemik's DSB, or Leng Sy's Miracle mud (and do not go through the expense to change it out regularly), we have a system that becomes more nutrient rich as time progresses. We have seen this in hobbyists tanks over, and over, and over again. The typically scenario is for stony corals to do well while the system is young and clean. As the system ages, and nutrient levels rise, stony corals begin to suffer, and oranisms like xenia and GSP begin to prosper. As rotting organic matter continues to accumulate in these sediments, nutrient levels continue to rise, and algae becomes more of an issue. If the process is permitted to continue, algae begins to choke out corals like xenia and zoo's, and even these corals begin to suffer. Cases of bacterial, or fungul, infections in fish also become more common as nutrient levels rise. Eventually, someone declairs that the system is suffering from "Old Tank Syndrome", and needs to be broken down and started all over again.

We could avoid this whole ugly scenario, all the loss of life, frustration, and expense, if the hobbyist simply understood the importance of managing nutrients, both dissolved and in particulate form.

One operative word is missing from your sentence. "traps and holds nutrients" does not actually say any is released. Trapping and holding is, I think you'd agree, fine, if no release takes place.

Yes I agree. If you can come up with a method that traps and holds nutrients within our systems, indefinantly, without releasing them into the water, you'll be a very rich man. Unfortunatly, it doesn't work that way, and I didn't take the time to go into that in the statement you quoted.

Just to clarify my statement. Yes. Nutrients are released from solid organic material. That's the bad part. If they remaind bound in the solid particles, they could cause our systems no harm. However, as they decompose, the nutrients they contain, like nitrogen and phosphorus, are converted into liquid form, and released into the surrounding environment. The more solid particulate organic matter there is within the system, the more nutrients its releasing into the water, and the higher the overall nutrient content of the system will be. If the accumulation of rotting organic matter is kept to a minimum, the amount of nutrients being released into the water, will also be kept to a minimum, and the overall nutrient level of the system will remain low. Provided that both systems have the same basic routine maintenance performed, like water changes.

Is there a net release of nitrogen from such a sand bed? Maybe, maybe not.

I've read research papers done in the field, articles written for the hobby, and posts online about nitrate reduction in sediments. I've seen nothing convincing that would suggest that denitrification has the potential, in aged aquarium sediments, like DSB's or unchanged Miracle Mud, to reduce nitrate more efficiently than periodic manual removal of the solid organic matter before it breaks down.

There's a side to this that's largely overlooked in the hobby. All of us have cyanobacteria in our systems. Even the pristine looking, SPS dominated, tanks of the month, have them. The difference is in the number we have. Their numbers typically rise as nutrient levels rise. If you look at the photos of the sand bed in this link,
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...2MCkDA&usg=AFQjCNHo2MEMMTPt5v_LekPwrIA1Q27eOw ,
you'll see that cyanobacteria are prolific. There's no doubt that its the decomposition in the sediments that's fueling this cyanobacterial growth. Cyanobacteria have the ability to fix nitrogen gas, and produce organic nitrogen, leading to more nitrate in the water of the system. Rotting organic matter also release nitrate that can then enter the water of the system.


So, what we have is denitrification reducing nitrate levels deep in the bowels of the sediment, cyanobacteria raising nitrate levels in the open water, and decomposition raising nitrate levels in the open water. How efficient can this system be at reducing the nitrogen content in the open water of the system? To me it sounds more like a method to produce nitrate, than a method to reduce it. Which is pretty much what we see in systems that employ these methods.

Finally, whether trapping detritus is a "problem" depends on what else might happen to that detritus. If it is skimmed or otherwise removed, then I agree it will probably cause more released nutrients (at least phosphate). If it just settles out somewhere else, then the difference may be moot.

Again, I agree. It doesn't really matter where the organic matter is within the system. It's going to rot and release nutrients. The rate of decomposition my vary, depending on where it settles, but the end result will be the same. The only way to stop this is to remove the organic matter before it has a chance to break down.

 

[elegance coral]

The point of it is not to create a nutrient-laden swamp in your aquarium. The point is to grow macroalgae to export nutrients to avoid said swamplike conditions.

By what mechanism does the mud cause algae growth? The only way I can see mud increasing algae growth is by increasing the nutrient content of the water. So the goal is to reduce nutrients in the water, and the swamp like conditions, by adding more nutrients to the water. Is that correct??????

So what if it does become a nutrient sink? If your aquarium contains a nutrient sink that fills up and is periodically replaced, as is recommended with the mud, that is helping to create a nutrient poor environment. Not a swamp.

This sink doesn't work like putting a stopper in the bottom of your kitchen sink and turning on the water until the sink fills. Then at some point it overflows, spilling water in the floor. It's more like drilling a bunch of holes in the sink, putting a stopper in the drain, and turning the water on full blast. The sink may still fill in time, but as it fills, its constantly poring water in the floor. Nutrients will build in the sediment over time, but as it does, it will constantly be releasing nutrients into the water of the system. It doesn't grab all the nutrients and hold onto them until the sediment is replaced. From the time that first tiny particle of organic matter settles on the surface of the sand, and is left there to rot, it will be releasing nutrients into the water of the system.

 

[thebanker]

EC, you're forgetting that a lot of these muds have high iron content. MM is basically SiO2 with lots of iron particulate, same with Walt Smith mud, etc. Iron helps drive macroalgae growth (micro too).

You're not dumping household compost into your tank.

Also, sorry but your kitchen sink analogy does not apply here. There are biological processes at work, you can't replicate those with a mechanical, fluid-dynamics analogy.

 

[username in use]

Nutrients will build in the sediment over time, but as it does, it will constantly be releasing nutrients into the water of the system.

How do you know this?

 

[elegance coral]

it (anecdotally) dropped nitrates in my tank within about 3 months of use.

I don't have a problem with that at all. In fact, I anecdotally agree with it. In three months time, the anaerobic bacteria have had time to populate, while the amount of rotting organic matter should still be relatively low. At this point in time, and IMHO, it should be capable of maintaining low nitrate levels. All I have is my opinion to back that up though. I maintain my sand relatively clean. Back when I tested nitrate levels, I typically got readings between 0.5 and 1 mg/l nitrate with a low range test kit. I credit the low concentration of rotting organic matter, and the anaerobic bacteria for maintaining that low level. I've never been able to find research that was done on low organic matter containing sediments, and it's ability to reduce nitrate levels in overlaying waters. I believe it works, similar to the way it would work in LR that has little rotting organic in it. Again this is just my opinion.

 

[thebanker]

Sure, a given volume of mud will be able to denitrify only so much. That's why those running DSBs eventually have to change their DSB, otherwise the methodology would be "fill up as much sand in your tank as possible!" and we know that's not the case.

 

[Flanders]

By what mechanism does the mud cause algae growth? The only way I can see mud increasing algae growth is by increasing the nutrient content of the water. So the goal is to reduce nutrients in the water, and the swamp like conditions, by adding more nutrients to the water. Is that correct??????

You are missing the point. Whether it adds specific nutrients that algae can use, or trace elements, or iron, or whatever else, or nothing at all, the point of it is to grow algae for nutrient export, and/or create a nutrient sink to eventually replace. Not to create ever increasing swamplike conditions.

Whether the mud does anything or not, it is intended as a means of nutrient export, not as a means of creating a swamp. You either don't understand what its intent is or you are intentionally misrepresenting its intent. The makers have not duped anyone into thinking a swamp is good for corals, but they may have duped people into thinking that mud does anything.

This sink doesn't work like putting a stopper in the bottom of your kitchen sink and turning on the water until the sink fills. Then at some point it overflows, spilling water in the floor. It's more like drilling a bunch of holes in the sink, putting a stopper in the drain, and turning the water on full blast. The sink may still fill in time, but as it fills, its constantly poring water in the floor. Nutrients will build in the sediment over time, but as it does, it will constantly be releasing nutrients into the water of the system. It doesn't grab all the nutrients and hold onto them until the sediment is replaced. From the time that first tiny particle of organic matter settles on the surface of the sand, and is left there to rot, it will be releasing nutrients into the water of the system.

I agree, and I didn't say it worked like that. In a reef tank nothing is static. A sandbed/mudbed is just another tool, and a very easily misused/neglected one. It has its uses, but nobody ever implied it was a perfect nutrient barrier. Actually I guess certain people have implied that.

 

[Paolo Piccinell]

EC, You are completely forgetting the central role of benthic organisms.

Infauna is the core of DSB method... without healthy infauna DSB is useless.

Infauna recycles organics, so they don't rot in the sand bed... infauna gives back to the system eggs and larvae (coral food)... so yuou need to feed less quantities.

Only if the food net (NOT food chain!!!) is weel established DSB works properly... otherwise is a biological bomb ready to explode.
Into a DSB well established tank, food is processed many times (three to five times) from fish to crustaceans, to worms, to filter feeders, to bacteria and algae... each passage helps to "clean" the organic material.

The last passage is skimmer... so there is very few organic remaining into the sand and rotting.

That's the key! ;-)

 

[elegance coral]

Originally Posted by elegance coral
Nutrients will build in the sediment over time, but as it does, it will constantly be releasing nutrients into the water of the system.

How do you know this?

I'm not sure what part of that you're asking about so please excuse me if I explain something that doesn't need explaining.

I know that nutrients will build in sediments over time for several reasons. We typically feed at a faster rate than the food can decompose, so it builds up. Look at any DSB. When it's first installed, its bright white and clean. Over time, you see dark, rotting, organic matter accumulating in the sand, and it losses it's bright, clean, white, luster. As organic matter continues to accumulate, the substrate becomes as dark and disgusting as the photos on Ron Shemik's site.

I know that this rotting organic matter will constantly be releasing nutrients into the water because this is an absolutely critical stage of the nutrient cycle that keeps us all alive. All plant life, outside of a few carnivorous species, rely on other organisms to free nutrients from solid matter. Plant life, including algae, lacks the ability to obtain nutrients directly from solid matter. They take up water, and utilize the nutrients it contains. Decomposers of all kinds, worms, pods, insects, fungus, microbes, and many others, move nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus from solid matter and release it in liquid form. Only then can plants utilize these nutrients and grow. If it weren't for this process, plant's would die. When plants die, we all die. The fact that we're alive to talk about it is proof that this process is going strong as it has done for billions of years.

All of that dark organic matter that accumulates in sediments is decomposing. The nutrients it contains, like nitrogen and phosphorus, are not magically dissappearing. They're not being "cleaned" away. They're not getting burnt up. This solid matter is simply being dissolved into liquid form. In our systems, the nutrients in this solid matter is simply being released into the water we're trying to keep clean, or nutrient poor. We run skimmers, change water, replace carbon and GFO, harvest algae, along with other techniques, all in an effort to remove, or keep nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus at low concentrations. A pile of rot and decay on the bottom of our systems is counter productive to everything else we do to provide our pets with a healthy environment to live in. It's adding nutrients to the water. Not removing nutrients from the water.

 

[elegance coral]

You are missing the point. Whether it adds specific nutrients that algae can use, or trace elements, or iron, or whatever else, or nothing at all, the point of it is to grow algae for nutrient export, and/or create a nutrient sink to eventually replace. Not to create ever increasing swamplike conditions.

Whether the mud does anything or not, it is intended as a means of nutrient export, not as a means of creating a swamp. You either don't understand what its intent is or you are intentionally misrepresenting its intent. The makers have not duped anyone into thinking a swamp is good for corals, but they may have duped people into thinking that mud does anything.

I didn't mean to imply that they marketed this product as a method to turn your reef tank into a swamp.:lmao: You're right. According to them that's not the purpose, or intent of the product.

If we fallow their plan, and remove this substrate after six months to a year, we will most likely be removing large amounts of nutrients along with their product. Nutrients that at some point would end up in our water, so the removal of the product after a period of time is removing unwanted nutrients. What they don't talk about is all the nutrients that were released from the organic matter, that settled in the sediments, in that six months to a year.

I agree, and I didn't say it worked like that. In a reef tank nothing is static. A sandbed/mudbed is just another tool, and a very easily misused/neglected one. It has its uses, but nobody ever implied it was a perfect nutrient barrier. Actually I guess certain people have implied that.

:lmao:

 

[elegance coral]

EC, You are completely forgetting the central role of benthic organisms.

I haven't forgotten them, and I've brought them up multiple times in this thread. They just do not work the magic you believe they do.

Infauna is the core of DSB method... without healthy infauna DSB is useless.

Infauna recycles organics, so they don't rot in the sand bed...

No offence intended here, but man you have seriously got to stop reading that Shemik garbage. He has you, and many others, believing some crazy stuff.

Infauna are decomposers. They aid in the rotting process. They do not prevent it.

infauna gives back to the system eggs and larvae (coral food)... so yuou need to feed less quantities.

You are correct.
However, in order to have a population of organisms living in the sand that is large enough to have a meaningful impact on the amount of food we feed, you would need a HUGE amount of rotting poo in the sand for them to feed on. It's been shown in this thread what large amounts of rotting poo does to corals, both in our systems, and in the wild.

Only if the food net (NOT food chain!!!) is weel established DSB works properly... otherwise is a biological bomb ready to explode.

You're not going to get that well established food "net". Even according to Shemik, in his latest article, he admits that his system will not work if the system is stock heavier than you would find in nature, in a comparable volume of water. This means that in his 40 gallon DSB tank, he can have zero fish. In my 300 gallon system, I could have zero fish, or I would be over stocked, and his method would not work.

Into a DSB well established tank, food is processed many times (three to five times) from fish to crustaceans, to worms, to filter feeders, to bacteria and algae... each passage helps to "clean" the organic material.

Again. Shemik is messing with you man. These organisms are not "cleaning" anything. They're simply moving those nutrients from the solid particles they feed on, to the water where we do not want them.

 

[Gravesj1s]

Law of physics " matter cannot be created nor destroyed"
All living things contain N & P including bacteria's occupying sediments.Those bacteria's also have a a life span of somewhere between 14-21 days.So what happens when these bacteria's die in the sediment ?

I think it's a safe bet to say an accumulation of phosphours to say the least.

-Steve

 

[Gravesj1s]

I just take issue with the cost of the MM at $60 a pound is rediculous and it is marketed as some special sediment when I know the stuff is collected on land,so I'd say yes it is misleading.
The comment about skimmers injecting huge amounts of CO2 is also another rediculous claim.

-Steve

 

[ivans75]

wow this thread has finally gone back on track
Keep it coming guys!
For me? MM no no DSB yes yes!!

 

[mattsilvester]

Yesterday I attended a briefing by Leng Sy the inventor of the EcoSystem Miracle Mud. Sounded interesting and he provided some strong support of the concept. I am setting up a 185 Gallon mixed reef and am thinking about going this route. Basically stated the system does not use a protein skimmer, it uses a refugium containing a 1 1/4" deep bed of Miracle Mud with a flow of 1000+ GPH.

Looking to see if anyone is currently using this system or has used it in the past. Would like to hear your personal review and all the Pros and Cons you experienced.

Thanks

Purposely, I have not read all the replies.

My own experience and thoughts on MM. I seriously considered it many moons ago. Finally concluded that with enough lighting and harvesting, macro algae is all thats needed for nutrient export. It is important however to keep up the water changes, even though you may have impecible water parameters, because the macro absorbs nutrients other than nitrate and phosphate etc. and so if these other nutrients become depleted then the algae doesn't grow as quick, and hence is less effective.

In more recent times (about 3-4 years ago) I decided to run my tank skimmerless, with macro algae. It was a medium stocked but well fed FOWLR tank. Upon switching over to the skimmerless methodology, nuisance algae dropped to zero - all I got was colarine growing on the front glass. I never bothered testing nitrates etc. - fish were happy, healthy, and growing quickly and no nuisance algae so no need to check. I kept up water changes etc. and it turned out one of the easiest and best systems I've ever run.

Right now, I am trying to make a go at SPS. So I am back on the skimmer. But I am also running macro. If I were not trying sps I would run with a large barebottom sump. I would float several baskets, ideally 4 (made from eggcrate if you prefer), and depending on growth I would dump 1 basket per week, bi-weekly, monthly etc. and re-seed with some young fresh cuttings, in order to ensure young, vibrant grow, and eliminate the dense heavy mat that forms at the top over time..... and keep up the water changes.

 

[ivans75]

I haven't forgotten them, and I've brought them up multiple times in this thread. They just do not work the magic you believe they do.




"No offence intended here, but man you have seriously got to stop reading that Shemik garbage. He has you, and many others, believing some crazy stuff.

Infauna are decomposers. They aid in the rotting process. They do not prevent it."

I tend to agree here, I dont think theres anything in this universe to prevent something organic or dead to decompose. I also agree that the critters do aid in rotting process by eating the decomposing organic (??) so they don't get into ammonia stage?




"You are correct.
However, in order to have a population of organisms living in the sand that is large enough to have a meaningful impact on the amount of food we feed, you would need a HUGE amount of rotting poo in the sand for them to feed on. It's been shown in this thread what large amounts of rotting poo does to corals, both in our systems, and in the wild. "

Ummm...in my 100 gallon system, I employ the use of DSB, it has about 3" of sand and I have only 2 fish (clowns) in this tank. I still see many amphipods, worms, bristle worms, some long red worms (saw in on the glass the other night) and other bugs making tunnels on the glass side of the dsb. They are there and they dont need fish poo. One of the amphipods are very big (more than 5mm in length) I do feed my coral with reefbooster once in a while.
Definitely no fish poo. Or not much



"You're not going to get that well established food "net". Even according to Shemik, in his latest article, he admits that his system will not work if the system is stock heavier than you would find in nature, in a comparable volume of water. This means that in his 40 gallon DSB tank, he can have zero fish. In my 300 gallon system, I could have zero fish, or I would be over stocked, and his method would not work."

In comparable to nature not to your tank...or I am loosing something here? However, it is quite unwise to compare mini ecosystem like our aquaria with nature. I am not really following u on this one nor have read such comment from Ron Shimek, care to send me the link?





Again. Shemik is messing with you man. These organisms are not "cleaning" anything. They're simply moving those nutrients from the solid particles they feed on, to the water where we do not want them.

I like this. Have you talked to Ron Shimek regarding your dispute, I'd like to know what he thinks about your claim. Not saying you re wrong as I don't know what to believe either. Is there any scientifc background on these you mentioned above?