EcoSystems

[ivans75]

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





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??????

How detrivores can convert the solid detritus to solid fertilizer? Their poo? How do you remove detritus? Normal vacuum cleaning?
DSB does work in many people's system. I tend to think, actually the anaerobic zone in the dsb makes it work. On my dsb, I have detritus on the sand especially the one below "hanging" live rock like under a "cave" and I never clean it up but I got no algae. How do you explain this?

While you might be right on the paper status, yes it gives more credibility especially to those who are not a thinker type of person but I don't think Dr Shimek came up with the idea without many consideration. As a person with paper status, he would have thought about his credibility and somehow prepared, i mean... what about if there is someone who's doing his method and got lost? And he's not doing this for profit either? I mean his method is free for everyone to look at and consider. He's not selling anything from my knowledge.

 

[elegance coral]

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.



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

The only fundamental differences I see in the two is the makeup of the sediments themselves, and the fact that the MM method advises to replace the sediments every six months to a year, and Shimek's DSB method does not. Other than that they're basically the same principle. You pile up sediments on the bottom of the system, and allow organic matter to accumulate and rot within it. They can try to suggest that there are some wonderful and magical processes taking place, and that somehow this is something other than a pile of rot and decay, but it isn't.

Macro algae does take up nitrogen and phosphorus. Harvesting macro algae, water changes, skimming, GAC, and GFO, all help to reduce these nutrients in our systems. These methods don't change the fact that dirty sediments add these nutrients to our water. We can't give MM, or a DSB credit for something that real filtration methods are doing. If our goal is to maintain low levels of nitrogen and phosphorus in our system, like it should be, a pile of rot and decay on the bottom of our tanks will force us to change more water, harvest more macroalgae, run more GAC and GFO, invest in more efficient skimmers, or any combination of methods to help offset the negative effects of this pile of rot and decay. MM and Shimek's DSB add the nutrients, we works so hard to control, to our water. They are counter productive to virtually everything else we do in our systems to provide a healthy environment for our pets.

 

[elegance coral]

How detrivores can convert the solid detritus to solid fertilizer? Their poo?

Solid organic material gets broken down as it passes through the digestive systems of animals. As this happens, a portion of the nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus are released in liquid form, and a portion in sold form. Then other organisms feed on that solid matter, and again convert a portion of it into liquid form and some in solid form. Each time this happens, the solid matter gets smaller and smaller, as more and more of it is converted into liquid form. Eventually it gets down to the microbial level, and it's all converted into liquid form or mineralized leaving nothing but a tiny amount of inorganic material behind. In other words, the nitrogen and phosphorus in that detritus gets converted into liquid fertilizer. The nutrients we work so hard to keep at low concentrations in our systems.

How do you remove detritus? Normal vacuum cleaning?

There are several ways. Mechanical filters (like filter socks), and skimmers help to remove free floating particulate matter. Once it settles in/on the sediments, the only way I know of to remove it, before it's broken down, is to vacuum/siphon it out.

DSB does work in many people's system.

No......... It doesn't. There are systems that haven't crashed while running a DSB, but that does not indicate that the DSB "works". A DSB does not perform the miracles, or magic, that it's claimed to perform, so it does not work.

If I build a complicated contraption in my front yard and tell people that it's a rocket ship to fly to the moon, can we say it "works" if it can not fly to the moon? Of course not. If it does not do what I claim, it does not work. It's just an ugly pile of scrap metal in my front yard. The Shimek DSB does not do the things he claims of it, so therefore, it does not work. It's just an ugly pile of rotting poo on the bottom of the tank.

I tend to think, actually the anaerobic zone in the dsb makes it work.

IMHO, A DSB is producing far more nitrate than it can convert into N2 deep within its depths.

On my dsb, I have detritus on the sand especially the one below "hanging" live rock like under a "cave" and I never clean it up but I got no algae. How do you explain this?

That detritus is decomposing, and it is releasing nitrogen and phosphorus into your water. If these levels are remaining low in your water, then they are being removed through some other process. Water changes, skimming, GAC/GFO, macroalgae harvesting......... Something is compensating for the negative impact of the rotting organic matter.

And he's not doing this for profit either? I mean his method is free for everyone to look at and consider. He's not selling anything from my knowledge.

Sure he's getting paid for this. He has books on this and other subjects, he gets paid to write articles, and I'm sure he's been paid to speak. I'm not saying he's getting rich, but he is absolutely getting paid.

 

[tahiriqbal]

Great Sunday night read and I am very interested to find out how often does one’s tank crash, if any due to Doctor’s DSB methodology? I never been a fan of DSB myself but have had used 30lb MM in my previous system's fuge. IME, there were no ill effects after two years of continues use neither any added benefits! Trapping detritus before they start to build up and become algae fuel is best way forward.

Tahir

 

[KingAmir]

Quote:
Originally Posted by elegance coral View Post
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..

:bum:

 

[elegance coral]

Quote:
Originally Posted by elegance coral View Post
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..

:bum:

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. We are not entitled to mislead people into believing falsehoods that lead to the death of their pets. If it was said that little poo eating critters were fascinating, and fun to watch, it would clearly be an opinion, and no one would have a problem with that. When Shimek makes statements like,

"The removal of both nitrogenous wastes, such as ammonia, and phosphates is accomplished by bacteria and microalgae which absorb these toxic animal byproducts and use them in their growth as necessary, required, and vital nutrients."

It is clearly no opinion. It is stated as fact. However, it is a falsehood. This waste is not removed through this process.

We simply need to read some of the responses in this thread to see how successful statements like the one above have been. People believe there are tiny, magical, organisms that clean up after our pets, so we don't have to.

Believing in this fairy tail typically doesn't lead to a sudden, out of no where, tank crash. There are typically multiple signs of pending doom, long before the tank crashes. A coral dies, then some time later another dies. This is easy to brush off as simply one of the things that happen when dealing with very delicate living organisms. While this is taking place, the accumulating pile of rot and decay on the bottom of the system is ignored. Why worry about it, if we have little magic critters taking care of it for us???? Then algae starts to pop up in different places through the system. Now the hobbyist typically takes action. They buy more herbivores, invest in larger media reactors, skimmers, and/or step up water changes. Again, this is done while ignoring the ever growing pile of filth on the bottom of the tank. The improved equipment and maintenance seems to solve the problem for a time. Then a couple more corals die. Maybe a few fish start showing signs of bacterial, or fungal infections. The herbivores can no longer keep up with the growth rate of the algae. Now the hobbyist starts getting desperate. They still won't touch the pile of poo on the bottom of the tank though. They still believe that it's somehow helping their situation. Now they do things like, deprive their corals and anemones of light for three days, or resort to medications and snake oils to kill the offending algae/cyanobacteria. Again this seems to work for a time. If the pile of rotting organic matter is large enough in relation to the total water volume, eventually the system simply becomes uninhabitable, and the tank crashes.

If hobbyists were not misled to begin with, they'd understand that the pile of rot and decay on the bottom of the tank was fueling most of their problems. They could simply clean up after their pets and avoid a great deal of the loss of life and expense associated with fighting the symptoms of all the rot and decay in their sediments.

 

[ivans75]

So, EC, help me out here...so you think Dr. Shimek is misleading us hobbysts. As a hobbyst I thank you for your concern but...if it's Misleading, is it based on what you think (or your opinion) or based on any scientific background?

 

[Gravesj1s]

Ivan,

For the most part yes,regarding the dsb using Shimek's theory or RDSB ideaology thats pretty much how they work or I should say dont work as claimed.But to be fair Shimek has contributed tons to the hobby,and DSB do have a place in certain reef enviroments.
As an example,some wrassses need a deep sediment ,maybe just pools of it though instead on the entire bottom of the aquarium where you cant manage it well might be better.Without the sediment or not enough depth, some wrasses will repeatedly dive into the bottom glass causing bodily damage.
Theres also seacucumber worms that prefer finer grain sands whitch they consume along with the organic material will parish without any sediment,imo.

There are many other examples where it has a place and shouldn't be looked at entirely as a rotting swamp.

As far as the science goes ,there really isn't any scientific evidence to support the dsb in a bucket or on the bottom of the aquarium.All of the links Elegance C posted are not new and have been brought to the attention of Shimek ,Borneman and many other advocates of dsb way over the past decade.I wont say what happened but I can tell you Ive seen folks with creditials (if thats what makes it count) like Ken Feldman and Eric Borneman debate it out ,Shimek as well as others at the end of the day theres still no evidence to support the dsb but plenty that says otherwise.

FWIW- I use a sediment in my tank but it gets gravel vacumed at every water change.
I have about an inch,(and yep, there is some evidence an inch or so is about the depth where most nitrification and denitrification takes place.

-Steve

 

[Gravesj1s]

Ivan,I thought you might find these interesting.Notice the date of the first study.

Denitrification can takes place in very shallow depths,despite what some may think.

-T.K. Anderson 1984 "Diurnal Variations of Nitrogen Cycling in Coastal, Marine Sediments."
From it.
"between 70 to 90 percent of the overall denitrification was located in the uppermost centimeter and the remaining 10-30% was found between 1-3 cm depth"

- Ecology and Evolution in Anoxic Worlds. Oxford University Press, Fenchel, T. and B.J. Finlay. 1995.
From it,
"anaerobic habitat can be as small as 1mm, that aerobic and anaerobic bacteria essentially coexist, as little as 0.08mm distance is sufficient for nitrification and denitrification to take place simultaneously."

-Steve

 

[elegance coral]

So, EC, help me out here...so you think Dr. Shimek is misleading us hobbysts. As a hobbyst I thank you for your concern but...if it's Misleading, is it based on what you think (or your opinion) or based on any scientific background?

It's based on scientific fact. Well known fact. It is not my opinion. If I said the Shimek DSB is responsible for more death in this hobby than Ich, that would be my opinion.

 

[elegance coral]

DSB do have a place in certain reef enviroments.
As an example,some wrassses need a deep sediment ,maybe just pools of it though instead on the entire bottom of the aquarium where you cant manage it well might be better.Without the sediment or not enough depth, some wrasses will repeatedly dive into the bottom glass causing bodily damage.

I totally, 100% agree.:thumbsup: What many people don't realize, or fail to understand, is that there is a HUGE difference between a sand bed that is deep, and a Shimek DSB. I've had a ~16" S. haddoni for probably the past 10 years. I would never deprive this animal of sand that is deep. That doesn't mean I have to keep sand that is filthy.

FWIW- I use a sediment in my tank but it gets gravel vacumed at every water change.

I do the same thing.:thumbsup: I've been doing this for about the past 25 years. Through most of that time, I've used the same exact sand. Small grains of calcium carbonate are typically no threat to our systems. It's the rotting organic matter that accumulates between the grains that cause us problems.

 

[ivans75]

wooooowww, so now the denitrification process actually takes place in the first centimeters of sand. If thats the case then DSB methodology is well... not important...not saying it's wrong but...I mean having dsb or no dsb (shallow bed) dont really matter.

 

[ivans75]

I think i am getting something here...I never give much thought about anything, just following what the so called experts are saying. I tend to agree DSB does not really contribute in any way, and infact yes it would create problem. I've got tonnes of cyano colony i can see on my glass deep of my dsb. I must admit it is fun to watch the critters digging their tunnels but I always wonder why my other tank using zeovit system is doing well too. I think the key is not WHAT SAND BED you have but how you manage your bacteria in your system. Someone told me about bacteria management, I think that's the most important thing of having a good system, i.e to ensure you always have enough bacteria colony in your system to convert waste to balance the system out. This is done with the help of nutrient export equipment or system such as skimmer, biopellets, refugium with macro algae.

I am in the process of setting up a marine system for my client here and I used to be a fan of dsb system and now my eyes are more opened. I won't use as much as on mt and will use about 2-3 cm of sand in the refugium for him. Less work.

Thanks guys, and ec i was doubting you at first but now I think you re right.
Cheers and good on you for standing on your logical ground...for me it's logic enough. And err....still the water in my coral reef is not that clear lol i am going to sangiang island in a week, its beautiful there.
Look here for pics of sangiang island, located on sumatra strait
http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10150278680499005.345845.571799004&type=3

 

[wayne in norway]

The very starting premise for a lot of these arguments, that the mud, and dsb's are nutrient sinks is a big assumption to make, and not one that is necessarily true, as is the assumption, statement that it must be full of junk to start with.

I don't particularly care if it's a marine sediment, or a terrestial sediment, if it does a job of facilitating macro algae growth that's good enough for me, because that's all it needs to do.

I would agree that Dr Shimeks assumptions on how fluids move inside DSB's has been less than helpful.

 

[atreis]

It's based on scientific fact. Well known fact. It is not my opinion.

Given the strength of this assertion, please site the scientific peer-reviewed journal paper for this fact, and a follow-up peer-reviewed paper providing experimental confirmation of the conclusions of the first paper. (Sorry, but without both, it's not fact.)

 

[elegance coral]

Originally Posted by elegance coral
It's based on scientific fact. Well known fact. It is not my opinion.

Given the strength of this assertion, please site the scientific peer-reviewed journal paper for this fact, and a follow-up peer-reviewed paper providing experimental confirmation of the conclusions of the first paper. (Sorry, but without both, it's not fact.)

I said it was "well known fact". The element phosphorus was discovered in 1669, and nitrogen in 1772. We would have to go back 300 years to find the peer-reviewed journals you're asking for. We don't do scientific research, write journals, and submit them for peer review on subjects that we already know and understand. We do this for things that are not well known fact. I'm sure the papers you're asking for exist, but it would take quite a bit of digging for me to find them. They're probably in some European museum.

These elements made it onto the periodic table of elements by meeting definitions like this. cannot be separated into simpler substances and that singly or in combination constitute all matter http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...ufmSBA&usg=AFQjCNEPUBhc7Ayqnc8QFFchkg2AY7qn9g

So...... We all know that microbes are incorporating nitrogen and phosphorus into their mass. (as we all do) How does this process remove, (as Shimek put it) "both nitrogenous wastes, such as ammonia, and phosphates", if the mass itself is not removed????? :hmm5: It can't. It is physically impossible. This is not my opinion. The basic, fundamental, well known, laws of nature tell us that Shimek's statement is false, untrue, and simply absurd.

The truth is that these microbes are not removing nitrogen and phosphorus. The microbes in our tanks are doing the exact same thing that microbes throughout nature do in relation to nitrogen and phosphorus. They dissolve solid organic matter, or the mass of dead organisms, and free the nitrogen and phosphorus it contains. Only then are these elements/nutrients available to fuel plant life. This is a vital step in the nutrient cycle that keeps us all alive. If microbes were somehow defying the laws of physics and removing, destroying, or making these elements go away, life as we know it would not be possible.

Again.:headwally: This is not my opinion. I didn't make the rules, or design this process. It's simply the laws of nature that we all must abide by. Including Shimek and his not so magic microbes.:spin3:

 

[elegance coral]

Thanks guys, and ec i was doubting you at first but now I think you re right.
Cheers and good on you for standing on your logical ground...for me it's logic enough.

You da man Ivans!:thumbsup:

And err....still the water in my coral reef is not that clear lol

:lol::beer:

i am going to sangiang island in a week, its beautiful there.
Look here for pics of sangiang island, located on sumatra strait
http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10150278680499005.345845.571799004&type=3

You got me all excited thinking I was going to see some beautiful reef pic's, but your link doesn't work.

 

[KingAmir]

Hi EC,

What do u think about the possibility of not doing WC in a mature tank?

 

[atreis]

I said it was "well known fact".

Actually, no, that's not what you said. Just had to scroll up a bit. Here's what you said:

So, EC, help me out here...so you think Dr. Shimek is misleading us hobbysts. As a hobbyst I thank you for your concern but...if it's Misleading, is it based on what you think (or your opinion) or based on any scientific background?

It's based on scientific fact. Well known fact. It is not my opinion. If I said the Shimek DSB is responsible for more death in this hobby than Ich, that would be my opinion.

Your assertion had nothing to do with the discovery and exploration of Phosphorous, etc... It was very specifically in reference to Dr. Shimek's methods (in this case, RDSBs), and you did not ONLY assert that "it's well known fact". You also asserted that it's "scientific fact". So, where's the peer reviewed and published citation demonstrating specifically that Dr. Shimek's methods don't work for aquaria?

That was, after all, your assertion.

 

[Gravesj1s]

wooooowww, so now the denitrification process actually takes place in the first centimeters of sand. If thats the case then DSB methodology is well... not important...not saying it's wrong but...I mean having dsb or no dsb (shallow bed) dont really matter.

I think that its fair to say that with regards to aerobic&anerobeic bacteria and the thought of adding deeper substrate is needed for denitrification to occur.

If you were more concerned with denitrification then you'd have to consider surface area over depth of sediment, likely the reason deep sediments in buckets are really not a good choice,imo.

FWIW-I think one of the points EC is making is that even if the sediment dwelling microbes were converting nitrate to free nitrogen entirely ,that process won't remove phosphates.

-Steve