EcoSystems

[atreis]

For reasons not obvious to people that haven't been around here a long time, Dr. Shimek doesn't come here anymore.

In terms of benthic creatures and deep sand beds, I think his argument works something like this: If left uneaten, those particles would rot (e.g. be consumed by lower, less efficient, shorter life-span life forms) releasing a greater proportion of nitrates to the water column than if they are eaten by larger life forms (worms, mainly) which incorporate a larger proportion of the material into their own bodies, leaving less to be released to the water column.

In addition, the deep sand also provides an anaerobic region in which bacteria of that nature can consume the nitrates produced and release their waste as NO2 gas, removing the nitrates from the system entirely.

IMO, MM would provide the same in terms of the anaerobic region, but makes life harder for the worms (which don't appreciate the sharp edges on silicon-based sand,) and is therefore worse than just having a DSB.

BTW, if you really read what Dr. Shimek writes, you'll also discover that it's fairly hard to have a large enough DSB to significantly reduce nitrates. (It won't fit under the stand, that's for sure.) This is why he advocates use of the RDSB (remote DSB - usually in something like one of those really large rubbermaid watering troughs, or multiple large trash cans...).

(Apologies to Dr. Shimek if I botched some part of the above.)

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

In terms of benthic creatures and deep sand beds, I think his argument works something like this: If left uneaten, those particles would rot (e.g. be consumed by lower, less efficient, shorter life-span life forms) releasing a greater proportion of nitrates to the water column than if they are eaten by larger life forms (worms, mainly) which incorporate a larger proportion of the material into their own bodies, leaving less to be released to the water column.

)

I wonder if there is any data to support the idea that larger creatures incorporate a larger fraction of consumed N and P? It is certainly the case that even the largest creatures, even people, excrete most of what they consume, and an adult human excretes nearly all of the N and P they take in. An adult fish is the same. A growing fish or human still excretes most of what they take in. I cover this in an upcoming article on phosphate at Advanced Aquarist.

 

[elegance coral]

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?

Not quite. We feed our systems foods that contains protein. As organisms feed on this protein it's broken down into its building blocks, amino acids. Amino acids are composed of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen. The carbon and oxygen are released as CO2, the hydrogen we don't care about, and we know what happens to the nitrogen. It becomes ammonia then nitrate. This is an overly simplified version. There are other steps it can take in the process, but it still starts with protein, that becomes ammonia/ammonium/urea, and eventually nitrate.
So, the activity of organisms that break down solid matter don't prevent the production of ammonia. It is the activity of these organisms that produce it.

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

I didn't mean exclusively fish poo. I was referring to any rotting organic matter. In most systems, fish poo makes up a large percentage of that rotting matter, but obviously that isn't true of all systems.

These organisms aren't picky. They'll eat pretty much anything dead, like "reefbooster", uneaten fish food, fish poo, coral slime, dead microbes, dead infauna............

These animals live in all of our tanks. Their numbers, or population, is greatly influenced by the amount of food available to them. Generally speaking, the more rot and decay you have in the system, the more critters like bristle worms, you'll have. These animals can not survive without food. None of us can keep all of the rot and decay out of our systems, so we all have some of these critters. If you have "lots" of detritivores, you have to have "lots" of detritus to feed them. There's simply no way around this fact.

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?

http://api.viglink.com/api/click?fo...0111112#pg81&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_13321094837121

He makes the statement in the last paragraph of the article.

 

[elegance coral]

In terms of benthic creatures and deep sand beds, I think his argument works something like this: If left uneaten, those particles would rot (e.g. be consumed by lower, less efficient, shorter life-span life forms) releasing a greater proportion of nitrates to the water column than if they are eaten by larger life forms (worms, mainly) which incorporate a larger proportion of the material into their own bodies, leaving less to be released to the water column.

There are several problems with this line of thinking. For starters, it's irrelevant what one organism in the sand is doing. What's important is what the population as a whole is doing. If the population is relatively stable, like it would be in a mature and stable system, you would get no reduction of nutrients through this process. As one worm is growing and incorporating nutrients into it's mass, others are dying a releasing their nutrients back into the environment. The only way to get a reduction of nutrients through this process would be to have a constantly growing population. The only way to get a constantly growing population, is to have a constantly growing pile of rot and decay to feed them. So in other words, you'd have to allow the system to become more and more polluted, so that you could grow more and more worms, so that some of that pollution would become worm mass.:hmm4: Even then, eventually you'd simply run out of room, and you'd have rotting matter and worms overflowing the tank. Naturally, this would be long, long, long after all the corals and fish have died.

In addition, the deep sand also provides an anaerobic region in which bacteria of that nature can consume the nitrates produced and release their waste as NO2 gas, removing the nitrates from the system entirely.

Can you post a link to show that this process can "remove the nitrates from the system entirely"?

I don't see how this is even remotely possible with Shemik's method.
His method fuels the growth/reproduction of cyanobacteria, which fix nitorgen gas, resulting in more nitrate.
The bulk of the nitrate released, takes place in the upper layers of his sediments where particulate organic matter and oxygen is highest. A large portion of this nitrate would end up in the open water. Not deep in the bowels of the sand where it can be converted into N2.
His method is a nitrate factory. Not a nitrate filter.

BTW, if you really read what Dr. Shimek writes, you'll also discover that it's fairly hard to have a large enough DSB to significantly reduce nitrates. (It won't fit under the stand, that's for sure.) This is why he advocates use of the RDSB (remote DSB - usually in something like one of those really large rubbermaid watering troughs, or multiple large trash cans...).

As people like myself keep blasting huge gaping holes in this ridiculous theory, he keeps changing the theory. At first it was simply a nasty sand bed in the bottom of his 40 gallon tank. Now you need huge volumes simply to house a goby. He's added the growth of macroalgae in an attempt to offset the negative effects of his pile of rot and decay. At one time he advised to constantly replenish the infauna, until people like myself pointed out how ridiculous that was. Now, according to him, you don't have to replenish infauna anymore. He still won't admit that it's his method, and teachings, that leads to "Old Tank Syndrome" though.

 

[elegance coral]

I wonder if there is any data to support the idea that larger creatures incorporate a larger fraction of consumed N and P? It is certainly the case that even the largest creatures, even people, excrete most of what they consume, and an adult human excretes nearly all of the N and P they take in. An adult fish is the same. A growing fish or human still excretes most of what they take in. I cover this in an upcoming article on phosphate at Advanced Aquarist.

I am soooooooo looking forward to that article.:thumbsup:
If it covers information like you describe above, it's an article that's way overdue in the hobby.

 

[elegance coral]

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?

Sorry I missed this part earlier.

I have not spoken to Shemik directly about this. I've never even met the man. Most people I talk to say he's a real nice guy. He even looks like a nice guy. I don't really have anything against him. I just really have a problem with his method, because it's killing countless pets.
I am very active on two of these reef boards, and I'm very outspoken against his methods on both boards. These are public forums, and I'm sure he would be welcome to join in on any of the many threads I've been involved in. I know if I had a method, and someone was out there publicly telling everyone I was wrong, I'd step up to defend my beliefs. At least I would if I had a leg to stand on.
There is known science to back up everything I've said, unless I specifically said it was my opinion. If you want references to confirm something I've said, simply let me know specifically what you're asking about, and I'll be glad to provide you with that information.

 

[LouH]

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.



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 just posted this earlier in regard to breaking down a several year old DSB.

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2147333

The sand under 16" of sand was as white as the sand on the top layer. Can't explain why, just an observation.

Lou

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.

 

[LouH]

Sorry, my comments got embedded in the center of the quoted text. This is what I wrote:

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 just posted this earlier in regard to breaking down a several year old DSB.

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/sh....php?t=2147333

The sand under 16" of sand was as white as the sand on the top layer. Can't explain why, just an observation.

Lou

 

[atreis]

Dr. Shimek hangs out (and is very active) on MarineDepot's forums. If you want to argue with him about his methods, I'd suggest going there. I certainly am not qualified to defend him. I was just trying to pass along my take on what he says, since he no longer comes here.

 

[elegance coral]

Dr. Shimek hangs out (and is very active) on MarineDepot's forums. If you want to argue with him about his methods, I'd suggest going there. I certainly am not qualified to defend him. I was just trying to pass along my take on what he says, since he no longer comes here.

I have no desire to argue with the man. I just want him to stop giving advice that's killing peoples pets.

 

[KingAmir]

I have no desire to argue with the man. I just want him to stop giving advice that's killing peoples pets.

Hi elegance Coral,

I've been digesting all opinion in this discussion thread. As a layman, i'm sorry to say that, Y are u so defensive? Be more open minded man. Pls accept others opinion also...In this world nothing is perfect. In fact, i can say that too many stuff in marine aquaria or in the ocean that haven't been explored..so just give ur opinion and dun downgrade others opinion.

Nothing is perfect in this world..including ur opinion..pls respect others and dun downgrade their opinion..:wavehand:

 

[doctorgori]

heck I've forgoten the postions of the assorted parties involved here :smokin:

... I'm a natural skeptic, but if Banker dude says his eyewittness account points to MM working then I'll go with it... :thumbsup:

Beyond that, if someone wouldn't mind refreshing me, what is the other point/take away for the last 5 pages ? :reading:
(laziness perhaps; I couldn't bring myself to sift through the back-n-forth) :rollface:

 

[elegance coral]

I wonder if there is any data to support the idea that larger creatures incorporate a larger fraction of consumed N and P? It is certainly the case that even the largest creatures, even people, excrete most of what they consume, and an adult human excretes nearly all of the N and P they take in. An adult fish is the same. A growing fish or human still excretes most of what they take in. I cover this in an upcoming article on phosphate at Advanced Aquarist.

The article is out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://api.viglink.com/api/click?fo...ine and Blog&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_13323747293231

 

[tahiriqbal]

Thanks for the EC...

 

[atreis]

I have no desire to argue with the man. I just want him to stop giving advice that's killing peoples pets.

Then you will have to convince him that his methods are incorrect. (Not me. I'm no one. Him. Thus the suggestion.)

 

[elegance coral]

Then you will have to convince him that his methods are incorrect. (Not me. I'm no one. Him. Thus the suggestion.)

It is you that's important. Not Shemik.

I've bumped heads with Calfo and Borenman. I did this because I believe they were saying things out of ignorance, and that they believed what they were saying was actually possible. Despite the fact that they had no evidence to back up what they were saying. In such a case, there's at least a slight possibility to change the way people think, and the things they say. It actually seems to have worked with Calfo, because shortly after I told him to stop killing anemones, he disappeared. I don't know what really happened with him though. As long as he's not telling people to kill their anemones I'm happy. With Shemik, I believe he knows full well that his method does not work the way he has convinced people it does. I don't believe he's saying anything out of ignorance. I can't get him to tell people the truth. He already knows the truth, so it will do no good for me to tell him what that truth is. As long as he can get people to listen to him, and believe in what he says, he'll most likely continue to do what he's been doing. Nothing I say to him will change this.

What's important is hobbyists like yourself, and the countless others, that simply want to provide a healthy environment for their pets. Thanks to forums like this, where topics can be debated, and evidence presented, the truth can be exposed. I don't know how anyone could read this thread and come away with the belief that Shemik's method, or the MM method, works as claimed. The evidence in this thread alone, is overwhelming, and clearly shows that these methods are not what they claim to be. Once people have this information, they should be better prepared to care for their pets, and that's all that really matters.:thumbsup:

 

[atreis]

It is you that's important. Not Shemik.

I've bumped heads with Calfo and Borenman. I did this because I believe they were saying things out of ignorance, and that they believed what they were saying was actually possible. Despite the fact that they had no evidence to back up what they were saying. In such a case, there's at least a slight possibility to change the way people think, and the things they say. It actually seems to have worked with Calfo, because shortly after I told him to stop killing anemones, he disappeared. I don't know what really happened with him though. As long as he's not telling people to kill their anemones I'm happy. With Shemik, I believe he knows full well that his method does not work the way he has convinced people it does. I don't believe he's saying anything out of ignorance. I can't get him to tell people the truth. He already knows the truth, so it will do no good for me to tell him what that truth is. As long as he can get people to listen to him, and believe in what he says, he'll most likely continue to do what he's been doing. Nothing I say to him will change this.

What's important is hobbyists like yourself, and the countless others, that simply want to provide a healthy environment for their pets. Thanks to forums like this, where topics can be debated, and evidence presented, the truth can be exposed. I don't know how anyone could read this thread and come away with the belief that Shemik's method, or the MM method, works as claimed. The evidence in this thread alone, is overwhelming, and clearly shows that these methods are not what they claim to be. Once people have this information, they should be better prepared to care for their pets, and that's all that really matters.:thumbsup:

I've expressed neither agreement nor disagreement with Shimek's method, personally, in my posts on this thread, but rather have expressed that it's likely preferable to MM because, in as much as the method works at all, it would likely work better while costing less.

I agree with you that, me being an aquarist, it is me (and every other aquarist) that it's important to educate, but I am not, in any significant way, influential (like Dr. Shimek and others). Educating me (in so far as I am educable) is taking the "one tank at a time" approach.

However, I don't agree that there is a single correct method for keeping our animals alive. There are extremes (Shimek, and the completely sterile bare bottom methods, for instance, could be described as two extremes on the same spectrum) that I personally don't like, but that doesn't mean that they can't be made to work under the right circumstances (e.g. other equipment used, stocking levels, feeding quantity and food selection, specific types of animals being kept, etc ...). For nearly every method mentioned, someone that uses it has found success with their specific setup, and several someones have failed.

If you explore my other posts, you'll discover that by and large I take a varietal approach, but also have a few quirks that likely work because of the specific peculiarities of my setup and would not translate well to others.

You might also discover that I've had good success with two very different tanks now, using two very different approaches. (One had an unusually large (relative to the display tank size) refugium, no skimmer, no water changes, and trace mineral and calcium supplementation, and the other has a pair of very small refugiums, skimmer, regular water changes, and no supplementation (due to the frequency of water changes).)

People's tanks are like gardens. There are sunny flower gardens, woodland gardens, bulb gardens, vegetable gardens, and so forth. All have different requirements and different methods that can be used to care for them, largely depending on the conditions inherent to the specific location, soil conditions, water conditions, plants chosen, chemical additives chosen (or not chosen) and so forth. Our tanks are similar. There are different methods that can be made to work, depending on the specifics of the tanks and their occupants. (While I don't espouse any of them, Shimek's RDSB, MM, and bare bottom are all methods that can be made to work, and thus have their adherents.)

Unfortunately, when someone says, "X works for me," it's generally not possible to determine that it's REALLY X, and not components Y and Z of their setup with X being neutral or possibly even negative. There are many different components all working together, and it would be both immoral and undesirable to have someone take their setup which is working, and start trying different combinations of the elements they use in order to determine which parts of their approach are actually necessary. (I've always suspected that MM tanks and Shimek tanks that work, work because of other factors, or because of unmentioned additional care (such as changing out the sand/MM every couple years).)

Another way to truly test these things is with parallel setups, but that's both difficult and expensive, so doesn't generally happen. There are a few people that do real research or have done it (Dr. Shimek, Randy Holmes-Farley, a few others) but as with researchers more generally they each look at their own specific piece of the puzzle, have limited time and resources, are human (and therefore fallible as well as prone to pride and hubris), and as a group are too few to develop a full body of knowledge.

One can also look at theory and mechanisms and try to figure out why something should/shouldn't work from what's known about the system and past research on similar systems. Unfortunately, most of us don't have the formal education to do this effectively (myself included, perhaps yourself excepted, I don't know), and even for those that do, there isn't enough known, in particular in regards to the complex interactions between different groups of animals from different regions all enclosed in tiny space capsules (tanks) for long periods of time (most or all of their life). Also, much of the research that one can find tends to focus on the monetarily valuable species (fish mostly, some coral) and not the base species (sand beds and their inhabitants, tiny animals, plants) with only a very small amount of research trying to look at entire ecosystems. What there is of that is generally confined to a very small, specific, slice of some much larger ecosystem.

What we end up with, as aquarists, is a smattering of real research, and a large selection of anecdotes to weed through. After weeding, one might generally be able to glean, for instance, that live rock (whether it starts out dead or not) is good and skimmers are generally an effective piece of equipment. For products such as MM and methods such as Dr. Shimek's or bare bottom, there ends up being insufficient anecdotal evidence to draw a definitive conclusion. In such cases, I personally tend to look at who is talking and who benefits from the use (sale) of the product. In the case of MM, it fails that simplistic test and has an obvious alternative.

Of course, insufficient real knowledge doesn't keep us from having our own individual opinions.

 

[ivans75]

lol now we re going out of topic again...

EC, its shimek not shemik

U should get a ph.d and everyone will start to believe in you

 

[Gravesj1s]

Elegance C.

While I agree with you on your main point whitch is sediments are generally nutrient sinks ,but I dont think you can lump MM and Shimek's methodology as one.

Not quite. We feed our systems foods that contains protein. As organisms feed on this protein it's broken down into its building blocks, amino acids. Amino acids are composed of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen. The carbon and oxygen are released as CO2, the hydrogen we don't care about, and we know what happens to the nitrogen. It becomes ammonia then nitrate. This is an overly simplified version. There are other steps it can take in the process, but it still starts with protein, that becomes ammonia/ammonium/urea, and eventually nitrate.
So, the activity of organisms that break down solid matter don't prevent the production of ammonia. It is the activity of these organisms that produce it.

While Ill agree with that concept and how it applys to Shimek's DSB methodology,but you cant really say DSB'S and MM function the same.

Your leaving out the fact that Caulerpa readily uptake N in the form of Ammonia/ammonium and Urea?It wouldn't be contributing to Nitrate like that ,would it?

-Steve

 

[elegance coral]

EC, its shimek not shemik

So I'm a little dyslexic. What do you want from me?:ape:

U should get a ph.d and everyone will start to believe in you

See, that's the problem. People should rely on their own intelligence and powers of reasoning to determine what's factual and whats not. People should think for themselves and not blindly fallow someone just because of the piece of paper they have hanging on their wall. The only way Shemik:lol2: can have followers is if they never question the things he says. The moment people begin to questioning him, reality quickly shows that his methods don't work.

There's a recent thread on his forum where a guy posted pic's of his tank. There's hair algae everywhere. I didn't even know hair algae got this long. This is some Rapunzel looking stuff.:lol: He also has about a 1/4" layer of detritus on top of his sand. Shimek's suggestion was to get more detritivores. I've been trying to explain in this thread, and Randy's article shows, what happens to nutrients like phosphate, that's in this detritus, when organisms feed on it. It doesn't disappear. It doesn't go away. It's converted into liquid form to go on and fuel more hair algae growth. Detritivores aren't helping in this situation. They're simply converting those solid particles of detritus into liquid fertilizer, full of nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorous. This whole problem would be solved if the hobbyist stopped listening to Shimek, stopped looking at that ugly pile of detritus and hair algae, and just got in there and removed the detritus. When the detritus is removed, the nutrients it contains are also removed, the hair algae is deprived on nutrients, and it dies. TaDa:dance: Isn't that simple??????