Aquarist007
New member
probably just embarased to show how much vodka you are consuming:lol:
New Nitrate theory
- Thread starter Paul B
- Start date
probably just embarased to show how much vodka you are consuming:lol:
Paul B
Premium Member
There is probably Lock Ness Monsters in there but I don't really have any algae now only some very short red stuff that covers everything in the Sound. I kind of like it as it does harbor a lot of life and I find it natural looking. A lot of people will not like the look of my tank because they are used to seeing sterile looking reefs. You have to make your tank the way you like it and I like mine just the way it is. :smokin:
These pictures are only about 2 months old, see the short red stuff on some of the rocks? Thats about all I get now but the hair may return some day, not on my head, but on the rocks. I don't see it as a harbinger of doom but a natural occurance which grows on every healthy reef in the world.
Last edited:
Aquarist007
New member
yes, but you keep hijacking it with pictures of your wine collection
wayne in norway
New member
On the one of the bottles you have a branching gorgonian? How does that grow for me as I have one similar, and I am a bit disappointed in how slowly it grows.
Whys
New member
Paul, I owe you an apology. I took exception to your use of terminology, and I believe rightfully so, but now I understand that it's not your own doing. The misapplication of the terms "anoxic" and "anaerobic" has become a common place matter of convenience even among serious authors. So I'm sorry for going off on you about it.
I recently created a diagram representing the key dynamics of a DSB, using the terminology as defined by the dictionary, rather than by creative environmentalists. To be specific, "aerobic" and "anaerobic" are biological processes, not chemical states of a sandbed. Thus what you are calling the "anaerobic" layer is in fact the "anoxic" layer and what you are calling the "anoxic" layer is in fact the "hypoxic" layer. Environmentalists have intentionally redefined these terms for the purposes of their own field of study and it is these redefined terms that you, and many others, are now using. Unfortunately, it obfuscates their true meaning and confuses the conversation.
I decided to adapt my diagram so that I might contribute it for the purpose of your theory. To be clear, it is at the bottom of the hypoxic layer where beneficial anaerobic bacteria convert nitrate to nitrogen. It is within the anoxic (truly oxygen devoid) layer where harmful anaerobic bacteria convert nitrate to hydrogen sulfide. I've added to this your conjecture regarding additional anaerobic bacteria deeper within the sandbed that convert nitrogen into ammonia
I hope this will help to further the conversation.
I recently created a diagram representing the key dynamics of a DSB, using the terminology as defined by the dictionary, rather than by creative environmentalists. To be specific, "aerobic" and "anaerobic" are biological processes, not chemical states of a sandbed. Thus what you are calling the "anaerobic" layer is in fact the "anoxic" layer and what you are calling the "anoxic" layer is in fact the "hypoxic" layer. Environmentalists have intentionally redefined these terms for the purposes of their own field of study and it is these redefined terms that you, and many others, are now using. Unfortunately, it obfuscates their true meaning and confuses the conversation.
I decided to adapt my diagram so that I might contribute it for the purpose of your theory. To be clear, it is at the bottom of the hypoxic layer where beneficial anaerobic bacteria convert nitrate to nitrogen. It is within the anoxic (truly oxygen devoid) layer where harmful anaerobic bacteria convert nitrate to hydrogen sulfide. I've added to this your conjecture regarding additional anaerobic bacteria deeper within the sandbed that convert nitrogen into ammonia
I hope this will help to further the conversation.
Hi Whys. Very nice apology. Nice chart too. Let me make a correction on your post in the spirit of clarity.
Heterotrophic bacteria do not convert nitrate(NO3) to hydrogen sufide( H2 S) . In the anoxic zone( orp 0mv) certain heterotrophic bacteria use the oxygen from sulfate SO4 to metabolize organic carbon producing H2 S(hydrogen sufide as a by product.
Heterotrophic bacteria do not convert nitrate(NO3) to hydrogen sufide( H2 S) . In the anoxic zone( orp 0mv) certain heterotrophic bacteria use the oxygen from sulfate SO4 to metabolize organic carbon producing H2 S(hydrogen sufide as a by product.
Aquarist007
New member
Imo-- Whys's last post and accompanying diagram does that well.
Paul B
Premium Member
Whys no need to apoligize to me for anything,
Thanks for the diagram though.
Remember the original article ib this thread was not written by me, Bob Goemans wrote it about someone's research. Having said that, however and whichever bacteria convert nitrate to either nitrogen or hydrogen sulfide that is not a problem as we all know it happens. My problem or theory if you will, is that I can't see how it will continousely work. Even in your diagram there are no worms in the lower layer, I am sure there are very few of them in the layer above that. After a while that sand will clog and no bacterial action will take place. Even bacteria need food and there will be no circulation down there. That is my one and only problem with DSBs.
As I said, ten years is not a long time for me, my hermit crabs are older thab that. If that time frame is not a problem than a DSB is the way to go.
Right now I am on the beach in Florida on Marco Island and I am on an unfamiliar lap top so I am having trouble typing. I will be back in NY in a few hours. I understand the power went off there today in my town and the people taking care of my tank were panicing for a while. It doesen't bother me at all as my tank has gone days without power.
Talk to you soon.
Thanks for the diagram though.
Remember the original article ib this thread was not written by me, Bob Goemans wrote it about someone's research. Having said that, however and whichever bacteria convert nitrate to either nitrogen or hydrogen sulfide that is not a problem as we all know it happens. My problem or theory if you will, is that I can't see how it will continousely work. Even in your diagram there are no worms in the lower layer, I am sure there are very few of them in the layer above that. After a while that sand will clog and no bacterial action will take place. Even bacteria need food and there will be no circulation down there. That is my one and only problem with DSBs.
As I said, ten years is not a long time for me, my hermit crabs are older thab that. If that time frame is not a problem than a DSB is the way to go.
Right now I am on the beach in Florida on Marco Island and I am on an unfamiliar lap top so I am having trouble typing. I will be back in NY in a few hours. I understand the power went off there today in my town and the people taking care of my tank were panicing for a while. It doesen't bother me at all as my tank has gone days without power.
Talk to you soon.
Paul B
Premium Member
Whys no need to apoligize to me for anything,
Thanks for the diagram though.
Remember the original article ib this thread was not written by me, Bob Goemans wrote it about someone's research. Having said that, however and whichever bacteria convert nitrate to either nitrogen or hydrogen sulfide that is not a problem as we all know it happens. My problem or theory if you will, is that I can't see how it will continousely work. Even in your diagram there are no worms in the lower layer, I am sure there are very few of them in the layer above that. After a while that sand will clog and no bacterial action will take place. Even bacteria need food and there will be no circulation down there. That is my one and only problem with DSBs.
As I said, ten years is not a long time for me, my hermit crabs are older thab that. If that time frame is not a problem than a DSB is the way to go.
Right now I am on the beach in Florida on Marco Island and I am on an unfamiliar lap top so I am having trouble typing. I will be back in NY in a few hours. I understand the power went off there today in my town and the people taking care of my tank were panicing for a while. It doesen't bother me at all as my tank has gone days without power.
Talk to you soon.
Thanks for the diagram though.
Remember the original article ib this thread was not written by me, Bob Goemans wrote it about someone's research. Having said that, however and whichever bacteria convert nitrate to either nitrogen or hydrogen sulfide that is not a problem as we all know it happens. My problem or theory if you will, is that I can't see how it will continousely work. Even in your diagram there are no worms in the lower layer, I am sure there are very few of them in the layer above that. After a while that sand will clog and no bacterial action will take place. Even bacteria need food and there will be no circulation down there. That is my one and only problem with DSBs.
As I said, ten years is not a long time for me, my hermit crabs are older thab that. If that time frame is not a problem than a DSB is the way to go.
Right now I am on the beach in Florida on Marco Island and I am on an unfamiliar lap top so I am having trouble typing. I will be back in NY in a few hours. I understand the power went off there today in my town and the people taking care of my tank were panicing for a while. It doesen't bother me at all as my tank has gone days without power.
Talk to you soon.
jenglish
Marquis de Carabas
When my DSB turns 30 you guys are gonna be sorry. :lol: Not to be morbid but I may need a ouiji board to continue this conversation in 30 years.
I think any substrate can clog eventually if not cleaned, but even a sugar fine sand bed can be cleaned. I know people who don't vaccum them that are approaching 15 years old, 6-8 inches deep and no black spots, the limits to this are not yet known. I think that any calcium based substrate is going to eventually fill with PO4 and be problematic. I have considered the idea of a silicate DSB to get around PO4 absorbtion, and trying to get sand critters from silicate based areas of the ocean.
I think any substrate can clog eventually if not cleaned, but even a sugar fine sand bed can be cleaned. I know people who don't vaccum them that are approaching 15 years old, 6-8 inches deep and no black spots, the limits to this are not yet known. I think that any calcium based substrate is going to eventually fill with PO4 and be problematic. I have considered the idea of a silicate DSB to get around PO4 absorbtion, and trying to get sand critters from silicate based areas of the ocean.
Aquarist007
New member
and in your opinion how does your reverse deep sand bed correct this fatal flaw in a dsb?
Paul I do hope that everything is okay in your tank.
In hindsight you should have had me baby sit the tank for a week, and your boat and your scubba gear and:lol: :rollface: :lol:
jenglish
Marquis de Carabas
Not to speak for Paul but I think a RUGF would be more resitent to clogging, easier to vac detritus out of, and virtually incabable of developing the true 0 oxygen conditions in which hyrdogen sulfide is produced. It would seem to me that it would also have some of the problems of a wet-dry of not having the low oxygen areas for denitrification. The fact that it does not either means the denitirfication is taking place in the rock in sufficient quantity or the level of flow allows for low oxygen regions to develop. At least that is my guess. I only ever ran RUGF briefly for African cichlids and went back to standard UGF.
After a while that sand will clog and no bacterial action will take place. Even bacteria need food and there will be no circulation down there. That is my one and only problem with DSBs
Paul B . I agree with that .
Hetertrophic bacteria need a source of organic carbon. There is no reason to beleive it will get there through a layer of packed sand by molecular diffusion in the water alone. Channeling and transport by live sand creatures is needed and /or or advective flow(from wave action and attendant water pressure changes) to pull it along. This occurs when the current in the tank hits and flows around obstuctions such as live rock or even the small protrusion of a sand grain. It is also how natural reefs work, as ocean current s hit them and an endo upwelling occurs moving nutrients through them.
The smaller the obstruction the less advective flow so bare topped beds would have very little.When the flowing water hits an obstruction it does it cause an upwelling of water and a consequent downward flow which brings dissolved and perhaps some undissolved organic material with it sourcing the organic carbon the denitrifying bacteria need. Advection can increase permeablility into the sand by as much as 50 fold.
Paul B . I agree with that .
Hetertrophic bacteria need a source of organic carbon. There is no reason to beleive it will get there through a layer of packed sand by molecular diffusion in the water alone. Channeling and transport by live sand creatures is needed and /or or advective flow(from wave action and attendant water pressure changes) to pull it along. This occurs when the current in the tank hits and flows around obstuctions such as live rock or even the small protrusion of a sand grain. It is also how natural reefs work, as ocean current s hit them and an endo upwelling occurs moving nutrients through them.
The smaller the obstruction the less advective flow so bare topped beds would have very little.When the flowing water hits an obstruction it does it cause an upwelling of water and a consequent downward flow which brings dissolved and perhaps some undissolved organic material with it sourcing the organic carbon the denitrifying bacteria need. Advection can increase permeablility into the sand by as much as 50 fold.
Whys
New member
Paul, tho it is likely true that the worms don't get much past the hypoxic region, I suspect there are microscopic organisms (besides bacteria) that do. But perhaps more to the point, I don't believe hydrogen sulfide typically accumulates in the sandbeds of the sea (someone please correct me if I'm wrong about that). Thus it is either not being created, or is being consumed, or otherwise slowly released thru agitation.
What is clear to me is that a functional DSB does in fact reduce, or at the very least absorb, nitrates. The readings on my aquarium leave little doubt. It is also clear that a handful of hobbyists at the very least have successfully managed a DSB for over a decade or two. That strongly suggests to me that "old DSB" syndrome is not a foregone conclusion, but a consequence of poor husbandry.
The question this theory seems to be asking is how deep is too deep? The conventional wisdom is anything beyond 6" requires caution. But I have also read of successful hobbyists with DSBs as deep as 12" or more. I do think such systems are ticking time bombs however and owe their success to the fact that the large volume requires additional time to reach saturation. I could be wrong about that too of course.
With regards to ammonia production, has anyone ever tried measuring it at the bottom of a DSB? Is there a particular bacteria that has been identified for converting nitrogen into ammonia? If the answer to both of these is no, then we are really just discussing the bogeyman, and that seems a bit unfair to those of us who believe in DSBs. I have already encountered more than one member of this forum who regards this new theory (specifically this thread) as a resolved argument against DSBs. It points to bias without facts, and that troubles me more than the bogeyman.
What is clear to me is that a functional DSB does in fact reduce, or at the very least absorb, nitrates. The readings on my aquarium leave little doubt. It is also clear that a handful of hobbyists at the very least have successfully managed a DSB for over a decade or two. That strongly suggests to me that "old DSB" syndrome is not a foregone conclusion, but a consequence of poor husbandry.
The question this theory seems to be asking is how deep is too deep? The conventional wisdom is anything beyond 6" requires caution. But I have also read of successful hobbyists with DSBs as deep as 12" or more. I do think such systems are ticking time bombs however and owe their success to the fact that the large volume requires additional time to reach saturation. I could be wrong about that too of course.
With regards to ammonia production, has anyone ever tried measuring it at the bottom of a DSB? Is there a particular bacteria that has been identified for converting nitrogen into ammonia? If the answer to both of these is no, then we are really just discussing the bogeyman, and that seems a bit unfair to those of us who believe in DSBs. I have already encountered more than one member of this forum who regards this new theory (specifically this thread) as a resolved argument against DSBs. It points to bias without facts, and that troubles me more than the bogeyman.
Similar threads
