Should I use an UGF?

[mojoreef]

There is evidence showing that DSBs act as a sink. --- It is the functionality of the system.....the detritus gets broken down and sinks until it can't go any further....it hits the bottom of the tank. It becomes trapped. ---No there is not. There is another of Dr Ron's half baked ideas in my opinion. No scientific test were done just an idea.

Actually Ray that is absolutely true and really dosent have anythingn to do with Dr. ron. In the best case for a dsb (or simular) a dsb can only reduce and process nitrogen based products and only a small percentage at that. What happens to everything else that is not nitrogen based??? it dont disappear. it sinks. This has been studied and documanted to death and is basic marine biology.
On the undergravel filter to be honest I dont even know what exactly it is supposed to do?? a little nitrification but thats about it, wouldnt really amtter which way you blow the water. A HOB filter is basicall a Particulate trap and will create a areboic nitrifing zone which will eventually produce nitrates if not cleaned continiously. So I guess it has a purpose, but seems labor intensive.
In reef tanks exportation is one of the biggest keys to being sucessful, a good skimmer performs that task very very well. So for me it is truely an essencial peice of equipment for a healthy reef. you can run with out it but you better have an equivilant means of exportation.

Yes it will pull gunt from almost any tank. However on some tanks like those with mostly or all softies that are set up with BSB, Lr and lots of detrivores it is mostly pulling out food in my opinion. And is a detriment in those cases IMO

Good flow will allow this food to be available to corals and other that may wish to eat it. The simple difference is that the skimmer pulls the balance out. With a DSB or other type system the user chooses to allow the waste/detritus to rot in thier tank (process of reduction by bacteria) As per food source thiers two things. One the food that lands on the dsb is food for the dsb and all that live in it. Good for them but it makes in unavailable to the corals and such that want to use it. Two: natural food sources that may come from a DSB do not come close nutritionally to food from a simple peice of shrimp meat (size for size) so why go through the pain of keeping an ecosystem that can not be controlled??


take care



Mike

 

[Ray Pollett]

Actually Ray that is absolutely true and really dosent have anythingn to do with Dr. ron. In the best case for a dsb (or simular) a dsb can only reduce and process nitrogen based products and only a small percentage at that. What happens to everything else that is not nitrogen based??? it dont disappear. it sinks. This has been studied and documanted to death and is basic marine biology.--- I have to disagree with this. The first and only one I've seen was by Dr. Ron. It has since been blown up as a scientific study. I will gladly change my opinion if you can actually direct me to a Scientific Study that is done properly.


On the undergravel filter to be honest I dont even know what exactly it is supposed to do??---The UGF was a great biological filter for it's time. The First one I remember were home made. Then Alexerod started selling the "Miracle Filter"in the late 50s or early 60s. It changed the aquarium hobby. We actually saw clean look water in our tanks, both Fresh and SW. We were able to keep fish alive longer with less work. One of the problems was if overloaded, either by overfeeding, over stocking or not cleaning the gravel ; people saw crashes.

a little nitrification but thats about it, wouldnt really amtter which way you blow the water.---]For the times it was a LOT OF BIO filtration. And I agree that it does not matter which way the water moved; But others do believe it makes a differentce.


A HOB filter is basicall a Particulate trap and will create a areboic nitrifing zone which will eventually produce nitrates if not cleaned continiously. So I guess it has a purpose, but seems labor intensive. ---]For the times it was a LOT OF BIO filtration. And I agree that it does not matter which way the water moved; But others do believe it makes a differentce. True but they are not labor intense IMO. I Clean one in a minute or two including changining the media.



In reef tanks exportation is one of the biggest keys to being sucessful, a good skimmer performs that task very very well. So for me it is truely an essencial peice of equipment for a healthy reef. you can run with out it but you better have an equivilant means of exportation. ---]This is were one of the problems come in. We have been taught how important that is with the set ups we were using. We now set them up different an I no long believe we have to export all that much.

Good flow will allow this food to be available to corals and other that may wish to eat it. The simple difference is that the skimmer pulls the balance out. With a DSB or other type system the user chooses to allow the waste/detritus to rot in thier tank (process of reduction by bacteria)---]This is were one of the problems come in. We have been taught how important that is with the set ups we were using. We now set them up different an I no long believe we have to export all that much. Here is another problem I see in your thinking. That is what we have been taught, but our tanks are different now then the tanks when we started thinking that way. Food is not just what we put in as flakes or frozen. It is also what the tank produces. When we started using the PS almost all tanks produced little to no food. With the LS, LR and detrivores tanks now produce a lot of foof that I do not want the PS removing. The waste/detritus does not rot in the tank. It is used by the multitude of animals including the corals as food.



As per food source thiers two things. One the food that lands on the dsb is food for the dsb and all that live in it. Good for them but it makes in unavailable to the corals and such that want to use it. Two: natural food sources that may come from a DSB do not come close nutritionally to food from a simple peice of shrimp meat (size for size) so why go through the pain of keeping an ecosystem that can not be controlled??---[/COLOR] I totally disagree here on all poiunts. You have totally IMO underestamated the way DSB, LR and all the detrivores act and produce in a tank

Best Wishes, This is a great discussion.

Ray

 

[mojoreef]

I agree Ray great discussion.

I have to disagree with this. The first and only one I've seen was by Dr. Ron. It has since been blown up as a scientific study. I will gladly change my opinion if you can actually direct me to a Scientific Study that is done properly.

I think you are refering to Ron blaming salt mixes to the reason he could not keep his tank alive. Not really what I was refering to. What happens in a DSB biologically is pretty simple stuff. I will get you some links and studies on the topic.

This is were one of the problems come in. We have been taught how important that is with the set ups we were using. We now set them up different an I no long believe we have to export all that much.

Well this is more of a mathimatical problem. If input doesnt match output your going to get a build up.

This is were one of the problems come in. We have been taught how important that is with the set ups we were using. We now set them up different an I no long believe we have to export all that much. Here is another problem I see in your thinking. That is what we have been taught, but our tanks are different now then the tanks when we started thinking that way. Food is not just what we put in as flakes or frozen. It is also what the tank produces. When we started using the PS almost all tanks produced little to no food. With the LS, LR and detrivores tanks now produce a lot of foof that I do not want the PS removing. The waste/detritus does not rot in the tank. It is used by the multitude of animals including the corals as food.

Ray I skipped over a few as this one seems to be the meat of the disagreement. In all tanks thier is a form of ecosystem, where one critters waste is another corals food. this goes all the way down the line until it gets to bacteria. In the case of the dsb all food that lands on the dsb goes to feed the critters that inhabit the dsb, thus that food is no longer available to critters such as corals once it has landed thier. The common arguement is that the food creates populations of larvae, and other simular planktonic creatures that will swim through the tank and feed the higher organisms. This does happen but on alot smaller scale then most believe. A dsb is a food chain unto itself, with top preds and lower victims. this is why you must recharge you dsb all the time, because eventually all that will be left are the bristle worms (top pred). the food and the food generated stay with in the ecosystem of the sand. Most of you plantonic critters that benefit the dusters and so on happen in the ecosystems of the rocks, Since the corals are in close proxicimity to this they have a better shot at capture. On the rotting comment Ray I was not joking, that is exactly what is going on in thier (bacterial reduction).
Lets jump onto the food source for a second. We have two primary sources of food were discussing the food made by the tank as you say and food feed to the tank by us. I agree with you that fish waste is an excellent source of food for corals and dusters, its actually all the food they really need in most cases. A person that actively export detritus is making it availble to corals and such through good water flow, something that is hard to achieve with a sandy substraight. in thier cases it usually sinks to the sand and become food for it. As food is feed pretty much everyday to keep the fish alive and healthy and the fact that 90% of the food they eat is pooped out, thier is always a constant source of it for them to have at.
Ok onto the critters that you are saying are produced by the sand bed. Lets say for arguement sake that they make it out of the sand and have gotten passed all the preds in the sand and out of it. So lets take any type, Ampipod, copepods, bacteria, crustasions whatever it may be. none of these have the nutritional value, pound for pound as a simple chunk of shrimp meat of equal size. lets take a pod. it consists of shell, legs, antenii and an amount of protienious meat, so maybe 50%??? where as an equal sized chunk of prawn/shrimp meat is...well all meat.so...100% or close to. So now lets look at energy budjets of the things that want to eat either. If a live pods lands on a coral the coral is going to have to expend alot of energy in order to capture, kill and eat the pod, where as with the shrimp meat well it plays dead. On to control. with the rearing of live foods such as the ones you are refering to you have no control over them. They will have mass fluxes in thier populations no matter what you do, so they will have die offs and blooms on thier time frame. this can add to what is usually already a nutrient overloaded system. In the other concept you feed the fish and higher life forms, they eat the food and poop out the waste (90%) the waste goes to feed the other forms in the tank, properly aimed flow will keep the waste in the water column and give the corals multple shots at it, until eventually the waste goes down the over flow and is removed from the system (kinda like cleaning up after dinner). this feeding cycle is continious and does not allow for the build up of any compounds or nutrients as does the other system.

Ok that is enough blabering, I will go look for some studies for ya

Mike

 

[mojoreef]

ok here are some to keep you busy, some are linkable some arent. I will post the abstract from the unlinkable ones for you.
Aquacultural Engineering
Volume 27, Issue 3 , March 2003, Pages 159-176

Water quality and nutrient budget in closed shrimp (Penaeus monodon)
Dhirendra Prasad Thakurm4.cor*m4.cor*, mailto:[email protected]:[email protected], a, b and C. Kwei Lina

Nutrient budget revealed that shrimp could assimilate only 23–31% nitrogen and 10–13% phosphorus of the total inputs. The major source of nutrient input was feed, shrimp feed accounted for 76–92% nitrogen and 70–91% phosphorus of the total inputs. The major sinks of nutrients were in the sediment, which accounted for 14–53% nitrogen and 39–67% phosphorus of the total inputs.

Water Research
Volume 36, Issue 4 , February 2002, Pages 1007-1017

Phosphorus Budget as a water quality management tool for Closed aquatic mesocosms

Awesome Article in how the St. Lawrence Mesocosm at the Montreal Biodome have dealt with nitrates and phosphate reductions. It seems that they have tried for the last ten years to try to remedy the amounts of phosphates and nitrates in their setup. After close controlled experiments and nutrient removal they have developed what they feel as the only reliable reduction process and that’s using Large mechanical filters and cleaning them regularly and sucking out the detritus with an underwater vacuum cleaner.

Advances in Environmental Research
Volume 6, Issue 2 , March 2002, Pages 135-142
Field measurements of SOD and sedimenthit2hit2 nutrient hit1hit1fluxe****3hit3 in a land-locked embayment in Hong Kong
K. W. Chaum4.cor*m4.cor*, mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]

Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hunghom, Kowloon, Hong Kong

It is logical that sediments in eutrophic water may contain enormous amounts of phosphorus existing in both organic and inorganic forms. Under aerobic conditions, a thin aerobic layer with a thickness of a few millimetres covering the sediments exists, which has been determined to be one of the factors contributing to the assimilation capacity of phosphorus. (Promeroy et al., 1965) When the condition changes to anaerobic, the ferric compounds are reduced and the sorption capacity substantially decreases. A free exchange of dissolved substances between the sediments and the overlying water takes place. Under such conditions, phosphorus will be gradually released into the overlying water.
Compared with phosphorus, the process of nitrogen release from sediments is more complicated since it involves the inter-conversion of a larger number of nitrogen species. It was noticed that ammonia nitrogen was, among others, the key form of nitrogen released from the sediment, which agreed well with results reported by Boynton et al. (1980). The release of a high concentration of ammonia nitrogen from the sediment is the result of the decomposition of organic nitrogen, which previously accumulated continuously in the sediment. The concentration of nitrate-nitrite nitrogen was found to be low since it can be released from or absorbed into the sediment, depending on the concentration gradient across the interface between sediment and water. When the external nutrient loadings or sources were gradually decreased and removed from Tolo Harbour, sediment previously enriched with nitrogen could still release sufficient nitrogen quantities to support the growth of plankton and hence improvement of water quality could not be achieved immediately.
It is also noted that the sediment release rate measurements are of the same order as those computed independently from a diagenesis model (Lee and Feleke, 1999).

Water Science & Technology Vol 42 No 3-4 pp 265–272 © IWA Publishing 2000

Non-steady variations of SOD and phosphate release rate due to changes in the quality of the overlying water
T Inoue*, Y Nakamura** and Y Adachi***
* Department of Maritime Systems Engineering, Kyushu University, 6-10-1 Hakozaki, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka 812-8581, Japan
** Port and Harbour Research Institute, Ministry of Transport, 3-1-1 Nagase, Yokosuka, 239-0826, Japan
*** Department of Maritime Systems Engineering, Kyushu University, 6-10-1 Hakozaki, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka 812-8581, Japan
--------------------
ABSTRACT
A dynamic model, which predicts non-steady variations in the sediment oxygen demand (SOD) and phosphate release rate, has been designed. This theoretical model consists of three diffusion equations with biochemical reactions for dissolved oxygen (DO), phosphate and ferrous iron. According to this model, step changes in the DO concentration and flow velocity produce drastic changes in the SOD and phosphate release rate within 10 minutes. The vigorous response of the SOD and phosphate release rate is caused by the difference in the time scale of diffusion in the water boundary layer and that of the biochemical reactions in the sediment. Secondly, a negative phosphate transfer from water to sediment can even occur under aerobic conditions. This is caused by the decrease in phosphate concentration in the aerobic layer due to adsorption.

http://www.terrapub.co.jp/journals/JO/pdf/5503/55030463.pdf

http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/topicreview/bp/ch10/group5.html

http://www.bact.wisc.edu/microtextbook/Metabolism/OtherAssim.html

Jaubert J., Marchioretti M., Priouzeau F., 1995. Carbon and calcium budgets in a semi-closed coral mesocosm. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Coral Reef Symposium, 289-293 (Boston, USA: April 1993).

Jaubert J., 1989. An integrated nitrifying-denitrifying biological system capable of purifying seawater in a closed circuit aquarium. Bull. Inst. Océanogr. Monaco. 5: 101-106

Boudreau B.P., Jørgensen, B.B., 2000. The Benthic Boundary Layer: Transport Processes and Biogeochemistry. Oxford University Press © 2000

 

[NaH2O]

EDIT - appears I was slow to post my studies... mike beat me to it

 

[mojoreef]

Aller, R.C. 2000. The Benthic Boundary Layer: Transport Processes and Biogeochemistry, Ed. Bernard P. Boudreau, Bo Barker Jørgensen, Ch. 11. Transport and Reaction in the Bioirrigated Zone, Oxford University Press © 2000
---------------------------------------------------------

Marine Pollution Bulletin
Volume 20, Issue 12 , December 1989, Pages 624-628
Alteration of phosphorus dynamics during experimental eutrophication of enclosed marine ecosystems*1
Kenneth R. Hinga
Marine Ecosystems Research Laboratory, Graduate School of Oceanography, University of Rhode Island, Narragansett, RI 02882, USA
Available online 7 April 2003.
Abstract
A 28 month eutrophication experiment was conducted in marine mesocosms at the Marine Ecosystems Research Laboratory of the University of Rhode Island. Each mesocosm contained 13 m3 of seawater and a layer of benthic sediments transferred from adjacent Narragansett Bay. Nitrogen, phosphorus, and silica were added daily to the mesocosms.

The paper examines net exchanges of phosphorus between benthic sediments and water column during the experiment. At low loading rates the regular annual pattern of phosphate concentrations is still evident but the amplitude of the pattern is magnified. At higher loading rates the annual pattern is lost and the effectiveness of the sediments to act as a `buffer' to water column concentrations is reduced. In some cases the nutrient loading caused a release of phosphorus from the sediments.
--------------------------------------------------

Author/Editor/Inventor
Hopkinson Charles S, Jr [a]; Giblin Anney E; Tucker Jane; Garritt Robert H.
Institution
[a] Ecosystems Center, Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, MA, 02543 USA.
Title (English)
Benthic metabolism and nutrient cycling along an estuarine salinity gradient.
Source
Estuaries. 22(4). Dec., 1999. 863-881.
Abstract
Benthic metabolism and nutrient exchange across the sediment-water interface were examined over an annual cycle at four sites along a freshwater to marine transect in the Parker River-Plum Island Sound estuary in northeastern Massachusetts, U.S. Sediment organic carbon content was highest at the freshwater site (10.3%) and decreased along the salinity gradient to 0.2% in the sandy sediments at the marine end of the estuary. C:N ratios were highest in the mid estuary (23:1) and lowest near the sea (11:1). Chlorophyll a in the surface sediments was high along the entire length of the estuary (39-57 mg chlorophyll a m-2) but especially so in the sandy marine sediments (172 mg chlorophyll a m-2). Chlorophyll a to phaeophytin ratios suggested most chlorophyll is detrital, except at the sandy marine site. Porewater sulfide values varied seasonally and between sites, reflecting both changes in sulfate availability as overlying water salinity changed and sediment metabolism. Patterns of sediment redox potential followed those of sulfide. Porewater profiles of inorganic N and P reflected strong seasonal patterns in remineralization, accumulation, and release. Highest porewater NH4+ values were found in upper and mid estuarine sediments, occasionally exceeding 1 mM N. Porewater nitrate was frequently absent, except in the sandy marine sediments where concentrations of 8 muM were often observed. Annual average respiration was lowest at the marine site (13 mmol O2 m-2 d-1 and 21 mmol TCO2 m-2 d-1) and highest in the mid estuary (130 mmol O2 m-2 d-1 and 170 mmol TCO2 m-2 d-1) where clam densities were also high. N2O and CH4 fluxes were low at all stations throughout the year. Over the course of a year, sediments varied from being sources to sinks of dissolved organic C and N, with the overall spatial pattern related closely to sediment organic content. There was little correlation between PO43- flux and metabolism, which we attribute to geochemical processes. At the two sites having the lowest salinities, PO43- flux was directed into the sediments. On average, between 22% and 32% of total system metabolism was attributable to the benthos. The mid estuary site was an exception as benthic metabolism accounted for 95% of the total, which is attributable to high densities of filter-feeding clams. Benthic remineralization supplied from less than 1% to over 190% of the N requirements and 0% to 21% of the P requirements of primary producers in this system. Estimates of denitrification calculated from stoichiometry of C and N fluxes ranged from 0% for the upper and mid estuary site to 35% for the freshwater site to 100% of sediment organic N remineralization at the marine site. We hypothesize that low values in the upper and mid estuary are attributable to enhanced NH4+ fluxes during summer due to desorption of exchangeable ammonium from rising porewater salinity. NH4+ desorption during summer may be a mechanism that maintains high rates of pelagic primary production at a time of low inorganic N inputs from the watershed.
-------------------------------------------------

http://www.ukmarinesac.org.uk/communities/intersand-mud/ism5_5.htm

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/ocd/sferpm/szmant/Brand_Szmant_Final.html
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/ocd/sferpm/szmant/carlson/carlson.html

http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/Bot482/Kaneohe Bay algae N-P Larned Mar Biol.pdf

http://www.mpi-bremen.de/flux/


mike

 

[aquariumdebacle]

UGF filter-Pod filter

I had a unique system withan udergravel filter in a 29 gallon tank. The gravel was 1/4" crushed coral <1/2" deep. You could see light thru the gravel when viewed from above. There was a small (200 Hagen) powerhead a few inches up on one side. The other plate had a larger (400 Hagen) at the top. There was a single rock and a 250 watt MH three feet above the tank. The powder brown loved to swim in the current in front of the lower powerhead. I fed Tetra Spirulina exclusively. I grabbed a huge pinch three times a day and let the food blow allover the tank. There were so many amphipods that the food was all eaten in minutes by pods and fish. It was a kind of "pod" filter. The tank crashed when I cut the light from 12 hrs a day to 8. The Caulerpa went sexual and the tank looked like pea soup in the morning.

A protein skimmers value can be seen at the time of cleaning.

 

[Ray Pollett]

Mike Thank you very much for the references. It will probably take me a while to get thru them all. I do appreciate it.

Ray

 

[Ray Pollett]

EDIT - appears I was slow to post my studies... mike beat me to it

That is fine Nikki, just so I get them so I can correct any misunderstandings of it.

Thanks,
Ray

 

[Ray Pollett]

Can you tell me how Dr. Jean Jaubert at the national aquarium of Monaco has been so successful with out skimmers.

" Jaubert reports extremely low levels of nitrate and phosphate, high level of calcium and alkalinity, along with exceptionally fast coral growth rates, without the use of skimming, large water changes, or calcium additions" page 33 Natural Reef Aquariums by John H,. Tullock.

Ray

 

[DonW]

You guys are way over my head. What I wonder is, if all the critters that live in and on the dsb or bb for that matter really clean-up (snails, crabs ect).
Doesnt it just go in one and out the other. My understanding is they do a good job of moving it from one place to another, but thats about it.
Its seems that the "clean-up crew" is just another must have that can be done without.

Don

 

[Ray Pollett]

You guys are way over my head. What I wonder is, if all the critters that live in and on the dsb or bb for that matter really clean-up (snails, crabs ect).
Doesnt it just go in one and out the other. My understanding is they do a good job of moving it from one place to another, but thats about it.
Its seems that the "clean-up crew" is just another must have that can be done without.

Don

Yes all life that eat also product ( to them) waste as far as I know. I have to admit, I no long have any tanks with DSBs over 4 years old. The last three were recently upgrade to larger tanks by the customers.So now My oldest was set up in Nov of 2000. My oldest one without a skimmer was set up Mar 16, 2001. It uses algae for nutrien export.

Ray

 

[mojoreef]

Can you tell me how Dr. Jean Jaubert at the national aquarium of Monaco has been so successful with out skimmers.
" Jaubert reports extremely low levels of nitrate and phosphate, high level of calcium and alkalinity, along with exceptionally fast coral growth rates, without the use of skimming, large water changes, or calcium additions" page 33 Natural Reef Aquariums by John H,. Tullock.

Sure can Ray. he cant, lol They had to do major modifications to thier systems and ended up opening them up to ocean water. So its not a closed system anymore, well most arent. You know that would have been a great questions for Charles Delbeek, he did a 5 year study on those systems, looking to possible use them in his aquarium. He ended up going with a plenum but highly modified so that they could be drained from below periodically. One the one thing CHarles kept telling me over and over again was his surprise at the high levels of ammonia through out the plenum. What that meant was that it was not even processing nitrogen compounds anymore as with the presence of ammonia thier cant be denitrification as it inhibites the first enzyne in the denitrifing process.
If you look at the references I listed, I listed one from the monaco aquarium as a reference why they dont work.

Ray dont get me wrong I am not saying folks shouldnt use DSB's. Reefing is a personal hobby and ultimately its each person tank and they can do with it as they want. Its just in the case of them thier is a ton of mis information on what they can do. If folks know both sides of the system then they can make an educated choice

Don your dead on my friend. Alot of folk will use snails and crabs to remove algae, but in reality they just promte the spread of it. When they poop they speed the spores released by the algae. That is the main form of defence algae has in the world. Best way to fight algae is to steal its food, no food no algae.

Mike

 

[Scooterman]

Now you have snails & crabs in the mix, Hey I like seeing those little critters roaming the tank, for no other purpose they are cool!
Ok back to your regular scheduled program!

 

[mojoreef]

Now you have snails & crabs in the mix, Hey I like seeing those little critters roaming the tank, for no other purpose they are cool!

Tehn by all means Scott put them in, I like them to and have them in my tank, well not the hermit crabs buts snails and some emeralds. Again its a hobby for pleasure, so if they please you put them in, same with the sand really. You just need to know the pros and cons, that way you have a better chance at making the tank sucessful.


mike

 

[aquariumdebacle]

Deep Sick Beds

Allright Mikey play-time is over I gotta call ya on some of yur baffling BS. I think we should start a new thread on nutrients. Excluding the High-Energy sps environments the deep sand beds can work effectively. The problem arises when people use them in high bio-load, highly lit (no puns please) systems. The export must exist as it must in all systems. The best way is flow-through. For those of us not living in Hawaii or Florida on the coast we must use an alternate system. The best being frequent large (%25) weekly water changes for us. That and the protein skimmer can accomplish most of the systems needs providing they are moderately stocked.
The food provided is probably more than your giving credit for and less than others are taking. If you add plankton to the system it stands a higher chance of surving longer than in a high energy tank where sps's are dominant and you don't want them anyhoo.
On to phosphorous. Please stop using the term "inorganic phosphorous" incorrectly. Inorganic means, in chemical parlence, that the molecule does not contain a carbon atom.period. The atom of phosphorous is not going to exist on its own it might exist temporarily as a ion but not in a living system for long. It will turn into an organic molecule within a short amount of time. THis does not change its effect but I must insist that you use the terms bound up in livivng tissue and free in the system available to the nuisance algaes. This is much clearer in determing how the element affects the organisms.
I must also remind you of the first and second laws of thermodynamics. Energy is expended everytime it is going thru someone. While the (%90) leftover may be true, in a diverse ecosystem that does not stay available for long, hopefully not long enough for the bad guys to get to it.
The nutrient sink problem while not diminishing its effects is also misinterpreted. The bacteria sough off and reconsume the remains of their forebearers in a continuous process (didn't use cycle.) Each consuming and re-consuming the elements from the previous generation. This is quite apperant in a trickle filter improperly utilized or a canister filter that hasn't been cleaned. The nutrients travel down thru the bed by active diffusion and a term I will coin as passive consumption. Defined by the bacteria consuming the dead upstair neighbors. In well designed systems of any type the oxidative value can out-weigh the slough-off detriment. I believe over-sized or oxygen chambers can facilitate this and keep nutrients bound in tissue; to some degree.
These are minor points but at some point they must be elucidated. Enough of my rant: Tag your it!

 

[mojoreef]

Allright Mikey play-time is over I gotta call ya on some of yur baffling BS.

Oh no Dan not my baffling BS, hehe rofl. Ah danny i do miss talking with ya. alrighy lets take a closer look

The problem arises when people use them in high bio-load, highly lit (no puns please) systems. The export must exist as it must in all systems.

Yes I believe it was determined that a 90 gal tank with a 6 inch bed could support 3 to 4 small fish and 4 to 5 corals. Well that is what the dsb experts say anyway. SO export is the key, So why not just export my friend?? You say water changes, flow and a good skimmer...me to!!! we agree I just skip the cycles,

Please stop using the term "inorganic phosphorous" incorrectly. Inorganic means, in chemical parlence, that the molecule does not contain a carbon atom.period.

or just not organic, splitting hairs bro. Thier are literally dozens of P types I didnt think we need to baffle folks with all the types and thiier forms, so lets just say free and not free if it feels good with ya.

I must also remind you of the first and second laws of thermodynamics. Energy is expended everytime it is going thru someone. While the (%90) leftover may be true, in a diverse ecosystem that does not stay available for long, hopefully not long enough for the bad guys to get to it.

Danny the bad guys always when, thats why thier bad. they are way better at capture and compitition. And how much is really used as energy in dsb critters, Sorokin did a good study on that, you would be surprised at how low it is. Also you got to remember that these organics that capture the available P also die in thier to (most bacteria has a life span of 11 hours) once they die guess what happens to the P???? back in the melting pot. or cycle.

The nutrient sink problem while not diminishing its effects is also misinterpreted. The bacteria sough off and reconsume the remains of their forebearers in a continuous process (didn't use cycle.) Each consuming and re-consuming the elements from the previous generation

See dan thats just not right. Bacteria are not a little raveious creature that will eat all that comes before it. Each bacteria type has specific food requirements, if that food is not available it just dies. Example the bacteria that denitrify. they fix oxygen, when oxygen is not present they fix nitrate, thats it, none of either, no bacteria of that type. So its not an endless life cycle of things that eat other things. that is what end product detritus is. stuff that nothing wants. what happens to it? in the wild its blown off into the abyssals, what happens to it in our tanks?

Defined by the bacteria consuming the dead upstair neighbors

Nope you cant do that, its just not true, see above.

In well designed systems of any type the oxidative value can out-weigh the slough-off detriment. I believe over-sized or oxygen chambers can facilitate this and keep nutrients bound in tissue; to some degree

Ok that one just did a fly by and I have no idea what you are talking about???

Dan the bottom line is that if you do not export it stays in, organic, inorganic, Phosphate, nitrogen, sulfide, nickle, lead whatever. If it stays in and thier is a bottom on the tank it will build up, thier is no where else for it to go. This is what the defination of a sink is? No?. Again I am not saying it is an unusable system, its just has a life time and limitation. Now if you know what they are then you can manipulate them to extend its life span a bit.

Back at you buddy and thanks for joining in.


Mike

 

[aquariumdebacle]

I got off on a little tangent with the trickle tower (and I mean tower in the sense that it's really tall and way too big for all but the craziest. THis may also apply to fish only systems as there is no export, just reduction to dissolved nutrients. It does appear as if the system (fish) at Below Sea Level has burned away any detritus in the filter or at least burnt it to the point where the massively oversized E.t.s.s downdraft is ripping it out of the water column. In the two years of operation I have never seen ANY detritus at the bottom of the tower.
As for the bacteria I was generalizing about the diversity and lumping them all together. Dertrius is almost entirely sloughed-off bacteria with all duley noted chemicals bound to them.
Sorry about splittin' your locks but I've bin holdin' back on the I word for a while, so let's go wit da free or not free and hope Rummy doesn't get invloved.

 

[DonW]

Mike

I thought DIP in a DSB was the long term flaw with usinging them. Excess DIP is caused by excess nutrient pollution. This is what happens to our lakes all the time.
Thus making the term inorganic accurate.
DIP disolved inorganic phosphorous.

Don

 

[mojoreef]

As for the bacteria I was generalizing about the diversity and lumping them all together. Dertrius is almost entirely sloughed-off bacteria with all duley noted chemicals bound to them.

Ahhh none of that generalising stuff here bo, some one will come looking to split hairs, lol. I think detritus has a little more to it then sloughed off bacteria to.

Don thier is literally a ton of Phopshates types. they generally fall under two parent catagories. Inorganic and organic. Or bound and free and so on and so on. Even under the term disolved inorganic Phosphate you have mutliple types. So the big choice here is, do we get real technical or not. I will go either way (no pun intended, lol) you make the call.
As per what kind of P is in a dsb thier are alot of kinds available and bound up in a bed, pretty close to the full phosphate cycle. So pick you poisen.

take care


Mike