Hmmm anyone want to talk about this one?? AGAIN

[ldrhawke]

Oh, I forgot about that article. We had a thread on it back in August: http://www.reeffrontiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9524

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2005/7/aafeature

I've read the August thread and all the negative belittling remarks about the Statistical analyses paper. The tests procedures were not perfect and the fact it did not taking into account the temperature swings; he may have used poor methods of analysing for death rates; .....the fact is all of these supposed errors are insignificant, and make little difference, in what the results of the testing did show.

What is the saying? "Not being able to see the forest because of the trees."

There was only one real significant difference in the test results. The amount of phosphate remaining in the water column when comparing coarse substrate and a little very fine substrate. It stands out like a sore thumb.

The main difference between the substrates is the physical ability for detritus to penetrate each. With very fine sand much more of the detritrus remains on the top which allows it to more readily move back into the water column and be removed; with coarse substrate the detritus more readily moves into the substrate and is biologically processed. A shallow fine substrate is more like a bare bottom in this comparison.

What the report and charts indicated to me was it is easier to control phosphates if you design a system to remove the waste and don't try to process it in the tank substrate, which many on this list are also advocating and has been agrued on all list from every perspective.

I think you guys were all busy laughing at the guy wheeling wheelbarrows of manure across the border and didn't realize he was stealing wheelbarrows...:lol: .meaning you may have missed or discounted a very important test result...phosphates.

I think the report showed something significant, which is nearly independent of procedural errors or the statistical math used. It is the first tests that I have seen, that has minimized and put a high degree of control on out side influence, and demonstates that bare bottom tanks make it easier to control nutrients, particularly phosphate, and the resultant algae growth and interference with SPS growth it can cause. It shows coarse substrate increases water column phosphates, even if you don't like the guy that did the test or how he did it.

Maybe more testing needs to be done to addresses some concerns for the procedure used, but I find the results extremely interesting and important.

 

[ldrhawke]

I cannot open and I'm reposting....sorry if it shows up twice

 

[wave98]

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2005/7/aafeature

I've read the August thread and all the negative belittling remarks about the Statistical analyses paper. The tests procedures were not perfect and the fact it did not taking into account the temperature swings; he may have used poor methods of analysing for death rates; .....the fact is all of these supposed errors are insignificant, and make little difference, in what the results of the testing did show.

The errors point in several directions including death rate, and many aquarists are not any where near as astute as you are John. "Others" could take several wrong meanings from the "results".

What is the saying? "Not being able to see the forest because of the trees."

Exactly John, most people are going to see the trees, even when a forest is there.

There was only one real significant difference in the test results. The amount of phosphate remaining in the water column when comparing coarse substrate and a little very fine substrate. It stands out like a sore thumb.

Again John, and yes I saw it. It isn't that simple either.

The main difference between the substrates is the physical ability for detritus to penetrate each. With very fine sand much more of the detritrus remains on the top which allows it to more readily move back into the water column and be removed; with coarse substrate the detritus more readily moves into the substrate and is biologically processed.

EXACTAMUNDO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, tell that to MikeS.

A shallow fine substrate is more like a bare bottom in this comparison.

And we know you like Bare Bottom too, but this is supposed to be scientific right? The political part was that they were "taking a swipe" at BB while they were at it, as I stated before.

What the report and charts indicated to me was it is easier to control phosphates if you design a system to remove the waste and don't try to process it in the tank substrate, which many on this list are also advocating and has been agrued on all list from every perspective.

I could not possibly agree with you more about removing the waste.

That is what you wanted it to say John, but that is specificly NOT the conclusion that "they" came to, now is it?

I think you guys were all busy laughing at the guy wheeling wheelbarrows of manure across the border and didn't realize he was stealing wheelbarrows...:lol: .meaning you may have missed or discounted a very important test result...phosphates.

I certainly did not miss it, and SPS dominated "aquaria" are not stereotypical of a "reef tank" either.

I think the report showed something significant, which is nearly independent of procedural errors or the statistical math used. It is the first tests that I have seen, that has minimized and put a high degree of control on out side influence, and demonstates that bare bottom tanks make it easier to control nutrients, particularly phosphate, and the resultant algae growth and interference with SPS growth it can cause. It shows coarse substrate increases water column phosphates, even if you don't like the guy that did the test or how he did it.

I have to admit, I don't remember, did they use Skimmers on these tanks, and how much flow was applied as well?

Does coarse substrate cause increased Phosphate, IF, it has fine substrate on top of it? As in more so than if fine substrate was used throughout the depth?

There are other conclusions that could be come to regarding the single "more significant" result.

I don't have a "side" John. Really. I have been digging thru phosphate till my brain turned purlpe, and it is only now, back down to blue. I think that BB is particularly suited to SPS dominated tanks.

If you try to tell me or anyone else, that DSB, or other versions of Reef Tank that use Substrate are not worth the trouble, then you are just blowing smoke.

Happy Reef Keeping. > Wave98

 

[ldrhawke]

And we know you like Bare Bottom too, but this is supposed to be scientific right? The political part was that they were "taking a swipe" at BB while they were at it, as I stated before.

I like substrate too and I was probably one of the most fervent advocates for using DSB's as a biological filter when I first set my system up. I even tried using a unique approach to trying make it work better ......I started the DSB Heresy Thread on RC which was based on an attempt to improve upon it and plenums. If you think you can improve upon what I attempted to do and even automate...more power to you. CPW (Controlled Plenum Wasting) If you take the time to read the extremley long thread you will see I made all of your arguements and many more as to why CPW works.

CPW worked, but it always was a battle as I walked the edge controlling it. After awhile, and losing some nice SPS, I came to a conclusion by asking myself a question......if I was building a new home, would I prefer building a composting pile inside my home to process waste or install a flushing the toilet to get rid of waste? I believe that this is the fundamental choice we are making when we expect DSB to be a bioloigcal filter in a reef tank. Or is it better to find a way to physically remove the waste before it starts to breakdown. The answer to me was obvious.:idea:

The only thing I'm advocating here is improving our knowledge on how to make reef keeping easier. I don't care if you filled the bottom of the tank with compost, nut and bolts, or beer bottles.....if it works.

Often the problem that happens when carrying on discussions on this list, and others, is that the parties are frequently speaking a different language, based on different experiences because they keeping different type of coral. I looked up pictures of your tank and I believe it is largely soft coral. Most everything your say is correct for this type of tank. Keeping a lagoon type reef tank and keeping a low nutrient tank for SPS is not the same thing. Keeping a tank with mainly softies; mushrooms, zoo's, lps, etc; I would be the first to agree a substrate bottom is better. Soft coral thrive on a little extra detritus, phosphate and nitrate.

Maintaining a reef tank largely of SPS combined with other corals requires low nutrient conditions, especially low phosphates, and requires a system designed with a finer balance to do this. It is more difficult to keep phosphates low with substrate in a tank, but as most have discovered, and this paper has clearly shown. You can build an SPS reef tank with a DSB it is living on a precarious edge controlling phosphates while trying. You can add a fuge and/or phosphate filter or other methods to reduce the phosphates being released from the substrate, but why if you don’t have to? I found it to be a struggle which can be lost when you least expect it. I don't even want to sit down and calculate the cost of the number of nice SPS I lost to RTN while I had substrate in my tank.

There are many who keep SPS with DSB or substrate in their tanks for years. There are also many who lost the battle trying or couldn't. Nearly, all of those that have changed to BB after losing the battle agree, BB makes it easier to keep nutrients low. This report clearly shows that substrates slowly release phosphates as they biologically break down the waste that collects inside them. Many stated that and showed technical studies done on actual reefs around the world, which were always argued didn’t really apply to a reef tank. This is the first paper that I have seen that documents and shows the numbers in a very simple controlled test on reef tanks.

 

[Curtswearing]

I wasn't involved in the August thread but looked it up. >>Here it is<< I have discussed this article (both part I and part II) on other forums though. I want to point out that I've always liked Rob (Biogeek on both RAG and Aqualink) as he had helped me several times. However, in spite of me liking him, I consider this article psuedo-science at it's finest. I remember when I read the article the first time, I literally laughed out loud several times.

I see that a lot of my arguments were shared by a lot of people here as well by reading the previous thread that I linked above. I have never argued statistics as I only had to take one class in it and once completed, I never looked back. However, I understand the subject enough to be dangerous.

John, I completely agree with you that larger grains have a tendency to trap detritus but IMO, he made a mistake here too. In a real tank situation, no one with only one powerhead would put it at the top of the water column to push fish food, etc. to the substrate. You would want the water movement running across the bottom to push the waste to the non-existant skimmer in the experiment (which is another failure of the experiment IMO). As a result, the phosphate graph is exaggerated IMO.

I'm glad that you chose to put this in the Advanced Forum because this is the graph we should discuss. During part I of the experiment, when there was no fish poo, or flake food, etc. (because he was only dosing liquid Ammonia) added that could be trapped by the sediment, why would we get a graph like this with such a large difference between large grains and small grains?

The errors point in several directions including death rate, and many aquarists are not any where near as astute as you are John. "Others" could take several wrong meanings from the "results".

Barry, I can confirm that many people have. I have seen people tell others that Rob Toonen did a study showing no differences between BB, DSB, Plenum, SSB, but whatever you do, don't go barebottom because SSB's cause fish mortality and Rob proved that BB would cause even more death.

We did not test bare bottom tanks, but the data clearly suggest that the shallower the sediment, the higher the mortality rate, and you can't get much shallower than a bare bottom tank!

:lol:

I think you guys were all busy laughing at the guy wheeling wheelbarrows of manure across the border and didn't realize he was stealing wheelbarrows...

I have never heard this one before. What a riot!!!


EDIT: Did anyone notice that the bacteria were able to nitrify and denitrify without worms?

 

[wave98]

Obviously you are new to the list.....I was probably one of strongest advocates for using DSB's as a biological filter when I first set my system up. I even tried using a unique approach to make them work better ......I started the DSB Heresy Thread on RC and designed CPW. If you think you can improve upon what I attempted to do and even automate...more power to you. CPW (Controlled Plenum Wasting) If you take the time to read the extremley long thread you will see I made all of your arguements and many more as to why CPW works.

I'm not "that" new to "the list", but I haven't posted that often on RF as of late. I think RF a great "board" just the same. I started a wasting plenum 1 year ago, based on a single post from your thread that I "stumbled" upon a link to. It may have been your own site at the time. I don't remember. It was a particularly excellent post.

The little Hex tank has been running for a year, and is doing well, but I have not wasted yet, so it's just a DSB. I gave up promoting the Wasting Plenum here on RF, quite a while ago, because the discussion had "devolved" into a "terminal debate" over particle size alone with the opposition insisting on large grains, and myself preferring much smaller grains, and some "layering" as well.

Anyway, I didn't know that much when I built the plenum, but I did get it into the tank so I could use it once I knew enough. I did finally read "almost" the whole thread several months ago, once I found it. It was and remains an excellent representation of your efforts, and general "wasting theory".

I particularly noticed the "mini-war" begun by Mr. Doering, and thought you handled that exceedingly well. He came back on RC 18 mos. later and gave me the same "treatment". It was his second post upon return, and only posted once after the last post in my thread. "Smash and grab"?

I could make CPW work, but it always was a battle as I walked the edge controlling it. I came to a conclusion while trying to make CPW work by asking myself a question......would I prefer building a composting pile inside my home to process waste or install a flushing the toilet to get rid of waste? That is the same choice we are making when we expect DSB to be a bioloigcal filter in a reef tank or we find a way to physically remove the waste before it starts to breakdown.

I understand. I look at the wasting plenum, and Substrate systems in general, from a different viewpoint however. I see the primary reason for having any substrate in a reef tenk, to be in support of the animals that need or prefer it. I happen to particularly like many of these animals.

The second function of said substrate( which depends on just "which" animals ), to be a supply of food, IF, you can pull that off, elsewise, back to objective one, and grow the food in a refugium or whatever.

The third function, is filtration, IF, you can get that as well, after one and two.

Often the problem when carrying on discussions on this list, and others, is that the parties are frequently speaking a different language, based on different experiences because they keeping different type of coral.

I couldn't possibly agree more ! ! !

I looked up pictures of your tank and it is largely soft coral. Most everything your say is correct for this type of tank. You would have a difficult time successfully keeping SPS in your tank. Keeping a lagoon type reef tank and keeping a low nutrient tank for SPS is not the same thing. Keeping a tank with mainly softies; mushrooms, zoo's and lps; I am the first to agree a substrate bottom is better. Soft coral thrive on a little extra detritus, phosphate and nitrate.

Again, I couldn't possibly agree more ! ! ! , but LPS can be touchy about phosphate as well, if it is allowed to inhibit cacification. H-m-m-m . . . .
I don't have any pictures of my tank. Maybe you mave me partially confused with PaulB, or someone else ?

Reef tanks have evolved a lot over the past 20 years, and also over the last 10 years. They are going to keep evolving. The "Deep Sand Bed" is going to evolve as well. Things are getting better at RC since the "explosion".

I started with a Wasting Plenum because my research at the time ( 15 mos. ago ) didn't support running DSB as it was "prescribed" at that time. Reccomendations like "low flow" and "mud" in the sand, are fairly out the window now, thank god. You knew there had to be a better way, and you were right.

For SPS, the CPW didn't turn out to be the best solution, at the time, and BB helped a lot, then "Surge simulation" got added, along with Vodka dosing. Brilliant explanation of the monitoring and adjustment method for dosing by the way.

Yes actually, I do think I can improve on your idea, and I already have, but I also have a long way to go, and it is going to take time.

A couple of good threads at RC, I happen to have started them both but their merit is acknowledged by others:

Plenums and the Wasting option:
http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=673910&goto=newpost

DSB's Work, What makes them work best?
http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=6643218#post6643218

I understand your efforts to improve Reef Keeping knowledge, and I think you're doing a great job. I still don't like their conclusions on plenums, since the set-up and execution did not follow reccomendations, and also because they took one heck of a "swipe" at BB right at the end, as if it were the most important conclusion of all. I think BB's are great !

> Wave98

 

[ldrhawke]

I remember when I read the article the first time, I literally laughed out loud several times.

Please state exactly why and where your laughed out loud so I better understand what you found so badly flawed.

In a real tank situation, no one with only one powerhead would put it at the top of the water column to push fish food, etc. to the substrate. You would want the water movement running across the bottom to push the waste to the non-existant skimmer in the experiment (which is another failure of the experiment IMO). As a result, the phosphate graph is exaggerated IMO.

Most reef tanks I have seen have the powerheads at the top. Designing a tank with a recirculation system so it has heavier flow on the bottom is nice, but few do this because it stirsup and banks the substrate unevenly from the flow.

Not having skimmer makes little difference, especially if none of the tanks have a skimmer, because if the substrate biological breakdown is causing phosphate release it is causing release with or without a skimmer. A skimmer may reduce the amount of phosphate release because you are reducing the waste loading, but it is still happening. In this case having a skimmer would only add another unnecessary variable that can slant the results. Skimmer or no skimmer has little effect on what the test did show.

I see that a lot of my arguments were shared by a lot of people here as well by reading the previous thread that I linked above.

This is my reference to the wheel barrow you liked:lol:

I'm glad that you chose to put this in the Advanced Forum because this is the graph we should discuss. During part I of the experiment, when there was no fish poo, or flake food, etc. (because he was only dosing liquid Ammonia) added that could be trapped by the sediment, why would we get a graph like this with such a large difference between large grains and small grains?

I disagree....it showed me that as the ammonia went through the nitrification/de-nitrification cycles, the bacteria used the available phosphate in the crushed coral substrate and released it into the water column. When detritus and food that collects in the substrate in test 2 they breakdown and do the same thing, but may be adding to the phosphate release because they may contain some.

Barry, I can confirm that many people have. I have seen people tell others that Rob Toonen did a study showing no differences between BB, DSB, Plenum, SSB, but whatever you do, don't go barebottom because SSB's cause fish mortality and Rob proved that BB would cause even more death.

Another reference to wheelbarrows.......just because the fish deaths skewed slightly toward DSB and plenums, you and others took it as an attack on BB. I didn't read that into it at all. It didn't prove anything regarding mortality one way or the other to me. Transferring live stock around is always a crapshoot.

They put one fish, one urchin, 10 hermit crabs, and 10 snails in the tank. The have 15 tanks and lose 2 to 3 snail or hermit crabs per tank. In the shallow bed loose 3. You cannot reach any conclusion from this about mortality no matter what math you use to prove a point. I agree with everyone this conclusion is badly flawed.

I could have just as easily concluded that the hermit crabs were doing so well in the shallow fine substrate tanks that they got real hungry and ate a snail.

Glad you liked the wheelbarrows.....

During BikeWeek I always wear a black T shirt, that says in white letters, you would probably like too..."Never Underestimate the Power of a Large Group of Stupid People" For some reason most of the people that laugh at it are woman. I think us guys take ourselves far too seriously sometimes.

 

[ldrhawke]

A couple of good threads at RC, I happen to have started them both but their merit is acknowledged by others:

Plenums and the Wasting option:
http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=673910&goto=newpost

DSB's Work, What makes them work best?
http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=6643218#post6643218

> Wave98

Thanks for the kind words. So you are RC's BarryHC.....I thought I recognized the interminable argument and prolonged writing style. I give up you win :lol: DSB plenum substrate wasting using your improved plenum design is the answer. When you do build it and use it I am very interested in what you find.

 

[Curtswearing]

We don't know each other so I want to make a couple of things clear. I already pointed out that I like Rob so my opinions of the article are not emotional in nature. I'm also not pro-BB, pro-DSB, pro-plenum, etc. My attitude is decide what you want and then find the best way to take care of it. In fact, I just sold my livestock in my BB tank and my prop tank to prepare for a move. As a result, right now, the only tanks I have are DSB softy nano's and one mantis nano. Last year, I also reset up my very first nano for a troubled teen that I'm the guardian of and I set up his tank with the dreaded CC. He doesn't know any of the science involved....he just does what I tell him to do. Guess what.....he has very low nitrates (usually undetectible and we do maintenance when it gets to 10 which is fine for softies IMO).

Please state exactly why and where your laughed out loud so I better understand what you found so badly flawed.

There's so many flaws that I'm not going to list them all. My favorite has got to be predicting fish mortality with a variety of fishes...especially when you look at the temperature swings.

He didn't set up the plenum the way that Jaubert recommends. He didn't set up the plenum the way that Goemans or Sprung recommends. He didn't set up the DSB the way that most of it's proponents recommend. He didn't set up any of the tanks on part II that ANYONE would recommend. IMO, this is one of the most damaging articles I read in recent days because it appears to be scientific when it is CLEARLY NOT.

He claimed to be peer reviewed to give the article credibility. I'm an accountant instead of a scientist. If I could see the flaws in the study at first glance, I know that the quoted peer-reviewers would have seen the same thing. Either heavy drinking was involved or they are ticked-off but are not saying anything or they did not really get the final article before it was published.

Regardless, I see no reason to go on and on and on. Just make sure you read the article with a critical eye and judge for yourself.

Not having skimmer makes little difference, especially if none of the tanks have a skimmer, because if the substrate biological breakdown is causing phosphate release it is casuing release with or without a skimmer. A skimmer may reduce the amount of phosphate release because you are reducing the waste loading, but it is still happening. In this case having a skimmer would only add another unnecessary variable that can slant the results. Skimmer or no skimmer has little effect on what the test did show.

On the skimmer issue, it only makes sense to mirror what people do with their tanks. Obviously, the skimmers would have to be the same brand, model, purchased at the same time, etc.

I'm not sure you are understanding me here. There is no detritus trapped, there is no fish poo trapped, so it's all biological breakdown. Doesn't biological breakdown occur with fine sandbeds too. I have no reason to believe that Rob would lie so there is a difference here. Or am I missing something?

 

[wave98]

> Wave98

Thanks for the kind words. So you are RC's BarryHC.....I thought I recognized the interminable argument and prolonged writing style. I give up you win :lol: DSB plenum substrate wasting using your improved plenum design is the answer. When you do build it and use it I am very interested in what you find.

The words are not kind. and my nose isn't brown either, they are accurate, and I am honest. People have a hard time believing that there isn't some "hidden agenda" behind my statements. There isn't.

Barry ( HC ) Yes.

Prolonged writing style, yes.

Interminable argument, until the truth comes out.

I didn't win, and I'm not trying to. This is what you don't understand.

There is no answer. This again is what you don't understand.

I will build it, but the concept is not even complete yet. You will be very interested in what I find, if one of us doesn't die first. > Barry

 

[ldrhawke]

You will be very interested in what I find, if one of us doesn't die first. > Barry

I hope that is not a threat..:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[wave98]

I hope that is not a treat..:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Sp? Yes ? > Barry

 

[mojoreef]

ldrhawke I think what we were all laughing at is that it would be pretty hard to make claims on mortality rates in these test tanks when their were temp swings of 14 degrees from day to night, along with a few other statements made in regards to BB.

What the report and charts indicated to me was it is easier to control phosphates if you design a system to remove the waste and don't try to process it in the tank substrate,

Seems like common sence to me??


Mike

 

[ldrhawke]

I already pointed out that I like Rob so my opinions of the article are not emotional in nature.

IMO, this is one of the most damaging articles I read in recent days because it appears to be scientific when it is CLEARLY NOT.

I'm certainly glad you not getting emotional about this.....

Doesn't biological breakdown occur with fine sandbeds too. I have no reason to believe that Rob would lie so there is a difference here. Or am I missing something?

Yes it does.....find substrate simply doesn't allow waste to penetrate as easily , so much more is pulled back into the water column with the water movement. A shallow fine sand bed doesn't biologically process as much as a coarse media DSB because it only see a fraction of the organic load, so natrually it releases a fraction of the phosphate. This is pretty well shown in the graphs.

I'll restate what I have said several times....nothing you have brought up as a flaw in test procedure has little bearing on the on the comparative resultant phosphate release from a DSB, w/ or wo plenum, when comparing it to a tank with a shallow dense substrate bed.

I agree fully his mortality conclusion is badly flawed. As I have stated earlier. To come to any sort of conclusion because 2 died in one system and 3 in another out of 23, and then to conclude a shallow bed or BB has a 50% higher mortality is comical and sad. Even if he had no wide temperature swings, it is flawed. There are a dozen things that could have caused 1 more to die in a shallow bed, not the least of which is simply bad luck.

Point of interest, I went back and read a lot of your old posts on this site over that last few years. I always like to get an idea where a poster is coming from. To my surprise I could have written them myself. We agree far more than we disagree.

 

[Elmo18]

This is a good discussion. [insert RC comment here...]

I actually haven't seen that article until just now ldrhawke. I'll have to read from the beginning

Best,
Ilham

 

[MikeS]

ldrhawke I think what we were all laughing at is that it would be pretty hard to make claims on mortality rates in these test tanks when their were temp swings of 14 degrees from day to night, along with a few other statements made in regards to BB.
Mike

And they also admited in their article that based on the statistical model they used, they found NO statistically significant difference in mortality rates vs. substrate type. All they did was make a broad generalization based on an observed trend.

MikeS

 

[Curtswearing]

I'm certainly glad you not getting emotional about this.....

I'm not sure I understand your statement here. I wasn't mad, sad, happy, etc. The closest emotion I can find would be happy though because I did laugh. On the other side of the coin, I guess you can say I was sad as well because I found this article utter silliness and highly misleading. The goals were admirable but the execution was lacking.

I'm going to have to try and restate my thoughts. My brain always knows what it wants to say but my fingers fight with me. That's a normal status for me. On top of that, I am one tired individual at the moment so please ask me to clarify anything that doesn't make sense.

Yes it does.....find substrate simply doesn't allow waste to penetrate as easily , so much more is pulled back into the water column with the water movement. A shallow fine sand bed doesn't biologically process as much as a coarse media DSB because it only see a fraction of the organic load, so naturally it releases a fraction of the phosphate. This is pretty well shown in the graphs.

When this graph was produced in part I of the experiment, there was no trapping involved....only diffusion. The Nitrite and Ammonia were both zero in both systems and the nitrate was fairly comparable. There was only diffusion involved, (i.e. not bioturbation, not trapping, etc.). Yet in spite of that, there is a difference in P. Remember, Rob was simply dosing pure Ammonia. The graphs show that the ENTIRE N cycle happened in both tanks yet one shows a lot of P and one showed none. Why?

 

[wave98]

From the 2nd article:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
The greatest differences among experimental treatments were observed as decreased buffering capacity, and higher final phosphate concentration of aquaria with coarse sediments relative to those with fine sediments. However, the chemical composition of the gravel may be responsible for this effect, and we have not tested other gravel types of similar size. We recommend that aquarists test any new gravel for dissolution before adding a lot of it to their aquarium.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Barry

 

[Skimmy]

if I was building a new home, would I prefer building a composting pile inside my home to process waste or install a flushing the toilet to get rid of waste?


Often the problem that happens when carrying on discussions on this list, and others, is that the parties are frequently speaking a different language, based on different experiences because they keeping different type of coral.

it's funny because your argument about "a new home" for having a cwp is an argument i can use for having skimmers on nanos

the second thing i quoted from you is one of the best things i've ever heard ever!

 

[wave98]

The "cwp" IS the "flushing toilet" ! Elsewise take out the carpet and the beds, and walk and sleep on glass ! ! !

> Barry