graveyardworm
Premium Member
Thats kinda what I thought but I was afraid to try. I didnt want to tread on someone's thread with experiments.
New Deodronephthya sp. study group?
- Thread starter charles matthews
- Start date
graveyardworm
Premium Member
Does anyone Know if any of the liquid life products have been tested for feeding response. I wanted to try them myself but they're a little bit pricey ( shipping moreso than product ), and I have other expenses on my mind at the moment. RC member JENnKerry is having great results feeding goniopora where previously most died in captivity.
I'm gonna try this stuff, already have it ordered.
http://ashbyaquatics.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=13
http://ashbyaquatics.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=13
charles matthews
New member
I'm glad to see the responses and interest we are getting. There is some very interesting information in the comments coming through. I am particularly fascinated by the observation that keeping them in some density may stimulate spawning. This would, of course, increase metabollic demand.
I have very carefully reviewed the available literature from Fabricius and Widdig regarding what's known about feeding. What I take away from these papers is that 1) I like the method of Fabricius using flourescence to quantify uptake. I think she has demonstrated that phytoplankton is utilized. 2) The uptake seems to be a linear response to concentration and to flow- thus, essentially related to contact numbers. 3) The data on zooplankton is interpreted poorly. It appears that the experiemnts were done on wild, motile plankton larger than a 100 micron mesh- note, oyster eggs are not motile and are about 50 microns. Increased concentration will increase uptake of zooplankton by three or four orders of magnitude- and this is for the 100 micron and larger organisms! So, feeding oyster eggs is an interesting idea. These may be better than golden pearls because of the clumping problem.
Since contact number is so important, I am moving my specimens to a 29 gallon plumbed to a 450 gallon system which essentially functions as a refugium and has a large skimmer. I don't think anymore that organisms from the refugia will feed these animals, but I use them as nutrient export, along with a large skimmer. With several animals in a 29 gallon, I will be able to target feed heavily on a closed system, and then open it up to water exchange once a day. I am going to target density of about 6 million cells/ml of mixed live phytoplankton cultures, and additional oyster eggs to tolerance of the system. Water movement is 20-30 tank volumes/hr, but I may replace the powerheads with a wave2K as my experience with this surge device on a control dendro looks promising.
Any comments?
I
I have very carefully reviewed the available literature from Fabricius and Widdig regarding what's known about feeding. What I take away from these papers is that 1) I like the method of Fabricius using flourescence to quantify uptake. I think she has demonstrated that phytoplankton is utilized. 2) The uptake seems to be a linear response to concentration and to flow- thus, essentially related to contact numbers. 3) The data on zooplankton is interpreted poorly. It appears that the experiemnts were done on wild, motile plankton larger than a 100 micron mesh- note, oyster eggs are not motile and are about 50 microns. Increased concentration will increase uptake of zooplankton by three or four orders of magnitude- and this is for the 100 micron and larger organisms! So, feeding oyster eggs is an interesting idea. These may be better than golden pearls because of the clumping problem.
Since contact number is so important, I am moving my specimens to a 29 gallon plumbed to a 450 gallon system which essentially functions as a refugium and has a large skimmer. I don't think anymore that organisms from the refugia will feed these animals, but I use them as nutrient export, along with a large skimmer. With several animals in a 29 gallon, I will be able to target feed heavily on a closed system, and then open it up to water exchange once a day. I am going to target density of about 6 million cells/ml of mixed live phytoplankton cultures, and additional oyster eggs to tolerance of the system. Water movement is 20-30 tank volumes/hr, but I may replace the powerheads with a wave2K as my experience with this surge device on a control dendro looks promising.
Any comments?
I
charles matthews said:
Don't rule out skimmate as a target food source.
Some thought was given to using that for infamous Goniopora sp. corals.
- - - - - -
Water flow seems rather on the low side.
Gulf Stream tops out a one meter per second. http://www.deos.tudelft.nl/altim/gulfstream/
as do others:
http://www.dlwc.nsw.gov.au/care/water/estuaries/factsheets/physical/movement.html
The ebb and flow of the tides maxs out at something like half a meter per second:
http://co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/currents05/
Drill down and look at the data for an indivisual stations - the summary data is all about height. Data is in knots so you'll have to convert. Knot ~ 0.518 m / s
Even tidal creeks in Charleston have a max flow of 1 ft/sec, and an average of say 3 inches/second!
http://www.charlestonempact.net/learning/whatwemeasure.aspx
http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=233487
You did ask.
PS - For those curious how their own systems stack up.
Take the length of your aquarium devided by the gallons (allowing for rocks and sand). That gives you the number of gallons per inch across your tank. Ok so multiply that number by say 3 - this gives the numbers of gallons of water you'll have to shift (left to right) to move the entire water column 3 inches. Moving that much water every second will cause a flow of 3 inches/second in your tank.
Now calculate it in gallons per hour - and you'll find a huge number.
"Ten times turnover rate my *ss"
Take the length of your aquarium devided by the gallons (allowing for rocks and sand). That gives you the number of gallons per inch across your tank. Ok so multiply that number by say 3 - this gives the numbers of gallons of water you'll have to shift (left to right) to move the entire water column 3 inches. Moving that much water every second will cause a flow of 3 inches/second in your tank.
Now calculate it in gallons per hour - and you'll find a huge number.
"Ten times turnover rate my *ss"
Oh well......who needs sand anyway
graveyardworm
Premium Member
OK let me see if I have this right, 90 gal tank - LR and sand guesstimate leaves me with 75 gal.
48 inches divided by 75 gal = .64 gals per in.
.64 gals per inch x 3 = 1.92
move 1.92 gals per sec = 3 in. per sec total movement
1.92 gals per sec x 60 = 115.2 gals per minute
115.2 gals per minute x 60 = 6912 gals per hour
That's a total turnover of 76.8 times per hour?
Did I do this right?
48 inches divided by 75 gal = .64 gals per in.
.64 gals per inch x 3 = 1.92
move 1.92 gals per sec = 3 in. per sec total movement
1.92 gals per sec x 60 = 115.2 gals per minute
115.2 gals per minute x 60 = 6912 gals per hour
That's a total turnover of 76.8 times per hour?
Did I do this right?
Actually, the first step should be to divide the volume by the length (not the length by the volume as given in Don's initial posting). That tells you how much volume is contained in a 3" length of the aquarium and which must be replaced every second to get 3"/sec flow rate.
In graveyardworm's example, it works out to 16,875 GPH or nearly 200 times turnover per hour. Wow!
In graveyardworm's example, it works out to 16,875 GPH or nearly 200 times turnover per hour. Wow!
graveyardworm
Premium Member
Thats one huge overflow.
RC overflow calc @ 16,000 GPH
Drain pipe diameter 5.22 in. sounds do-able, now all I need is a pump.
RC overflow calc @ 16,000 GPH
Drain pipe diameter 5.22 in. sounds do-able, now all I need is a pump.
Salty - more of a sweep back and forth, more or less - over say 30-seconds for a complete cycle
graveyardworm
Premium Member
Back to Dendros for a minute, I think that at the depths most of them are found at they are subject to a more linear flow rather than a sweeping back and forth motion. There may be some pulsing to the flow but I believe it would be a more or less a constant flow. So I guess the question is how much flow is typical at these depths?
Hi Folks,
nice to find a denro thread I've been looking nepths since reading up on the GARF site.
The problem I anticipated was that they would be unsuited to a bare bottom system, after some tips from bomber I'm now more confident that a BB system offers a decent environment.
I run a softies/lps system with a fairly heavy fish load so feed a wide variety of foods. Unlike with an SPS system, I do not syphon the base, I simply allow for some low flow spots and have 2 pumps on a timer that blast the settled detritus back into the water column, this causes a detrius storm that lasts about 45 min before the water is clear again. Flow is high for a softies system, with 2 6100 tunze streams, a tunze 4002 powerhead and an ehiem 1060 pump.
The storm IMO provides an excellent array of particle sizes and food varieties and also ensures the skimmer is kept busy.
The system is heavily wet skimmed. Water changes are essentially from replacement of skimmed water and ro/di topup.
I picked up the following specimens in Nov 2004, this is how they currently look.
Id's would be appreciated
Can't say that I've seen any growth as yet, 4 months is no time at all, a year I guess will give some kind of indication.
The one thing I don't feed is live phyto, in your experience does it make a noticeabe difference and does it require changes to the system to be utlised effectively.
200x turnover is absolute madness, it would strip the specimens from the rock IMO, a lower volume more linear flow as per graveyardworm would be more feasible.
I like Charles concept of a species tank plumbed into a core system, that can be fed heavily and flushed into the core system for feeding the other inhabitants, anyone else using something similar to increase contact number?
nice to find a denro thread
I've been looking nepths since reading up on the GARF site.The problem I anticipated was that they would be unsuited to a bare bottom system, after some tips from bomber I'm now more confident that a BB system offers a decent environment.
I run a softies/lps system with a fairly heavy fish load so feed a wide variety of foods. Unlike with an SPS system, I do not syphon the base, I simply allow for some low flow spots and have 2 pumps on a timer that blast the settled detritus back into the water column, this causes a detrius storm that lasts about 45 min before the water is clear again. Flow is high for a softies system, with 2 6100 tunze streams, a tunze 4002 powerhead and an ehiem 1060 pump.
The storm IMO provides an excellent array of particle sizes and food varieties and also ensures the skimmer is kept busy.
The system is heavily wet skimmed. Water changes are essentially from replacement of skimmed water and ro/di topup.
I picked up the following specimens in Nov 2004, this is how they currently look.
Id's would be appreciated
Can't say that I've seen any growth as yet, 4 months is no time at all, a year I guess will give some kind of indication.
The one thing I don't feed is live phyto, in your experience does it make a noticeabe difference and does it require changes to the system to be utlised effectively.
200x turnover is absolute madness, it would strip the specimens from the rock IMO, a lower volume more linear flow as per graveyardworm would be more feasible.
I like Charles concept of a species tank plumbed into a core system, that can be fed heavily and flushed into the core system for feeding the other inhabitants, anyone else using something similar to increase contact number?
