Dr. Dendrostein
Marine fish monthly
So @Lasse, if I understand, correct me if wrong. Detritus converts/breaks down to DOC?
25 year old 75G Jaubert Plenum on top with 30G EcoSystem Mud/Macro
- Build Thread
- Thread starter Subsea
- Start date
- Tagged users None
In my box for equipment to be used in the future - there is some CO2 gear 
Believe it or not but when I first started to plan my aquaria - I did not know about the Dymico system - It was David that point out that I was thinking of such a system.
Yes but only for the bacteria in the sand bed (hopefully). Normal "breakdown" bacteria needs DOC in order to grow but the denitrification bacteria also need DOC in the Krebbs cycle as an electron donor. My first thought´s was to let the system produce DOC for the denitrification but nowadays I believe that the whole system can serve as an anaerobic digestor (as @Subsea pointed out) The idea of injecting CO2 was to speed up the dissolving of CaCO3 as pointed out of others.
Sincerely Lasse
Believe it or not but when I first started to plan my aquaria - I did not know about the Dymico system - It was David that point out that I was thinking of such a system.
Yes but only for the bacteria in the sand bed (hopefully). Normal "breakdown" bacteria needs DOC in order to grow but the denitrification bacteria also need DOC in the Krebbs cycle as an electron donor. My first thought´s was to let the system produce DOC for the denitrification but nowadays I believe that the whole system can serve as an anaerobic digestor (as @Subsea pointed out) The idea of injecting CO2 was to speed up the dissolving of CaCO3 as pointed out of others.
Sincerely Lasse
In some steps of anaerobic digestions - yes. In aerobic mineralization - as I know - no
Sincerely Lasse
Subsea
5000 Club Member
This point you made supports how my 25 year old refugium mud bed increased in depth by 1/2”. The mud felt spongy to the touch.
Subsea
5000 Club Member
Interesting discussion. For me, the sandbed is the heart of my natural system.
As I was researching, I found this paper which may be of interest to some of you mud scientist.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0027973
“Study was conducted to examine the influence of reef associated bethnic primary producers on ambient DOC & DO concentrations........”
As I was researching, I found this paper which may be of interest to some of you mud scientist.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0027973
“Study was conducted to examine the influence of reef associated bethnic primary producers on ambient DOC & DO concentrations........”
Subsea
5000 Club Member
Most of the growth at glass substrate interface is cynobacteria. However, when Plenum was functional there was no cyno. I could see a definite hydrogen sulfide interface in depths of gravel which was dynamic in that it would migrate up or down.
Scrubber_steve
2500 Club Member
I don't know about "mud", but Hass, in this paper, is specifically concentrating on >>indirect coral-algal interactions - DOC / bacterioplankton relationship. This paper is a favourite for people who are against algae filtration methods. They use it to suggest all algae are bad, but the paper itself doesn’t come to the conclusions that these people believe. I’ve commented on it before.
Hass et al states –
Indirect interactions have also been suspected to cause coral damage, yet much less is known about the potential mechanisms involved in these interactions. The primary hypothesis relating to indirect coral-algal interactions is that algae may release excess photosynthate into the water column in the form of DOC, which may serve as a food resource for microbes which in turn may increase in abundance on adjacent corals. The increased heterotrophic microbial production can lead to hypoxia and coral death. A few studies have specifically quantified and qualified DOC release rates from a select number of benthic reef algae. However, recent data on algal organic matter release, especially in coral reef ecosystems, are still rare and difficult to compare to earlier studies due to different incubation and analytical methods as well as different reference parameters. end
Hass, not only describes the “indirect coral-algal interaction” scenario as a hypothesis, the data he references, as well as his own data, are based on incubation and analytical methods (bioassay experiments). As made very clear by Vieira et al, “the question remains: what explains the inconsistency between field observations and bioassay experiments?” https://www.nature.com/articles/srep18637
In other words, conclusions based on the results of lab tests can be very misleading.
Hass himself – “Caveats of using bacterial yield measurements from incubation experiments to extrapolate in situ reef conditions include overestimation of bacterial growth because of the diluted cultures.”
From this paper Hass noted –
Notably, bacterioplankton growth rates and yields were uncorrelated with DOC release rates, emphasizing that these patterns in efficiency were not solely driven by the absolute quantity of cells produced, but also by the utilization of the DOM exuded.
Among the algae, Turbinaria exhibited relatively low bacterial cell yields and specific DOC removal rates, despite having relatively high rates of DOC release, translating into significantly reduced bacterial growth efficiency.
In contrast, Halimeda exhibited one of the lowest rates of DOC production and much lower DOC release ratios than the other organisms, but the produced DOC exhibited relatively high bacterial yields translating into significantly higher growth efficiencies than the other treatments.
These patterns in the efficiency of production and removal of DOC together suggest that Turbinaria has relatively low-quality DOC (i.e. low growth efficiency)
and Halimeda relatively high-quality DOC (i.e. high growth efficiency) compared with other benthic producers examined here.
We also note that Amansia appeared to produce large amounts of highly labile DOC with low bacterial growth efficiencies, suggesting selection for a highly inefficient community growing on the rapidly exuded compounds
So Hass et al concluded that only some algae species are relative when considering the “indirect coral-algal interactions” hypothesis, & that exudates from fast metabolising (fast growing) algae species typically used for algae filtration are uncorrelated with bacterioplankton (virulent bacteria – pathogens) population size & growth rates.
Subsea
5000 Club Member
Outstanding details. You and Timfish would have much fun with this topic. Tim and Steve Tyree bounced this topic around. I simplify and say what Martin Moe told me at my first MACNA conference. It was shorty after we landed a man on the moon, “With respect to reefkeeping, it’s not rocket science, it is more complicated”. Reef Biochemistry does not happen in a vacuum, it is holistic in nature. Components in biochemistry can not be isolated for lab test without effecting other components. It is not a circuit board to be diagnosed.
Last edited:
Scrubber_steve
2500 Club Member
Tyree doesn't like to debate people on internet forums who disagree with his views. I have debated Timfish on another forum & I consider him a rampant ideologue. This is because he actively promotes this ‘all algae is bad, don’t use algae filtration’ argument, but no matter the evidence you put forward to politely show he is wrong he continues on.
One very telling case in point is his fabricated story about the GBR coral reef exhibit which opened in 1987. He likes to tell people its Algae Turf Farm (ATF) filtration was responsible for a coral mortality rate of 90%, & this is why the algae turf farm was removed from the system in 2002. I told him what he was saying was completely wrong & provided two papers by marine biologists associated with the aquarium to prove it.
The aquarium shut down in 2002 for renovations & they changed the way they maintained the exhibit. They refer to this change as the “Oceanic Water period” (pre-2002) average coral survival rate was only 20% to 30%, to the “Estuarine Water period” (2002 to present) corals survival rate increased to 70% to 80% (possibly higher now).
The changes made to the systems maintenance that were considered most critical to improving coral survival were –
1. The switch from using priori ultra-clean oceanic water, collected offshore by barge, to using ‘less pure’ estuarine water collected on the incoming tide from the Ross Creek to increase nutrients and provide an external source of plankton.
2. The removal of internal mechanical filtration (three large sand filters). This improve overall tank health by avoiding ‘over stripping’ the water column of particulates and encouraging plankton production, greater food availability, and larval settlement, especially during spawning periods
3. Internal circulation was increased (which according to Dana Riddle’s research would have also increased the rate of photosynthesis).
4. The use of calcium chloride to raise average calcium levels (~ 250 mg Ca2+.L-1, to 420 mg Ca2+.L-1).
In regards to the algae turf farm they state – “the Algae Turf Farms effects on CRE filtration were negligible, especially when compared to the systems overall internal algal mass productivity.” The ATF only accounted for >>> 0.5% <<< of systems overall algal biomass. Removing it would not have had any effect for this reason. It was removed because it was too labour intensive & took up too much budget money to maintain it. Removing it had zero to do with coral mortality, but Timfish continues on promoting his lie? He even misrepresented what the papers stated to argue his case.
Last edited:
Subsea
5000 Club Member
@Scrubber_steve
I read you alls dialogue on RC. I am not interested in your opinion of Tim’s personality. I am interested in the facts. Yes, it’s true he doesn’t embrace ATS. I have no issue with that.
PS. As a grower of seaweed for sale, both ornamental and utilitarian, the use of seaweed is bedrock to my company. Tim and I debate this often. We agree to disagree.
http://www.aquacultureranch.com/
Laissez les bonne temps roulee,
Patrick
I read you alls dialogue on RC. I am not interested in your opinion of Tim’s personality. I am interested in the facts. Yes, it’s true he doesn’t embrace ATS. I have no issue with that.
PS. As a grower of seaweed for sale, both ornamental and utilitarian, the use of seaweed is bedrock to my company. Tim and I debate this often. We agree to disagree.
http://www.aquacultureranch.com/
Laissez les bonne temps roulee,
Patrick
Last edited:
Scrubber_steve
2500 Club Member
Tim might be a friend of yours, & he might be fun to have a beer with. But I don't value his opinions on reef keeping at all because he's a rampant ideologue.
Subsea
5000 Club Member
In my box for equipment to be used in the future - there is some CO2 gear
Believe it or not but when I first started to plan my aquaria - I did not know about the Dymico system - It was David that point out that I was thinking of such a system.
Yes but only for the bacteria in the sand bed (hopefully). Normal "breakdown" bacteria needs DOC in order to grow but the denitrification bacteria also need DOC in the Krebbs cycle as an electron donor. My first thought´s was to let the system produce DOC for the denitrification but nowadays I believe that the whole system can serve as an anaerobic digestor (as @Subsea pointed out) The idea of injecting CO2 was to speed up the dissolving of CaCO3 as pointed out of others.
Sincerely Lasse
Considering that facultative bacteria in low oxygen environment consume oxygen molecule from nitrate leaving free nitrogen gas as a nutrient export mechanism, I am trying to understand the relative importance of sulfide bacteria performing denitrification. Sam Gamble coined the term NNR, natural nitrate reduction, as used in Jaubert Plenum. He stated that facultative bacteria were 10 fold more effective at removing nitrate from system. I used this passive system for 25 years to not only remove nitrate but during night time low pH passive buffering and trace mineral addittion were achieved.
Subsea
5000 Club Member
Diffused flow is best. You got it right with with reef rubble. As your system matures, this will become a pod haven.
Dr. Dendrostein
Marine fish monthly
In various tanks of mine, I use sulfur denitrator, unfortunately they do have their draw backs,I'm leaning more toward facultative bacteria in low oxygen, better results, less effect on water perimeters, calcium, alkilinity, magnesium , etc....
Dr. Dendrostein
Marine fish monthly
What I do know, and seen, orp reads crucial in water treatment and of course in reef keeping.
Scrubber_steve
2500 Club Member
This is how I set up my cryptic zone Subsea.
The permeable coral wall results in a very slow movement of
water through the cryptic zone as Steve Tyree recommended.
Subsea
5000 Club Member
What is permeable coral wall? I like the concept.This is how I set up my cryptic zone Subsea.
The permeable coral wall results in a very slow movement of
water through the cryptic zone as Steve Tyree recommended.
Scrubber_steve
2500 Club Member
the permeable coral wall is made from coral skeletons & a mortar of coral sand & rock salt mixed with white cement.
Water flows through it & over it.
Similar threads
- Price: SOLD
- Shipping NOT Available
New Posts
-
Help with skimmer. And help with foam in my sump- Latest: heelanjeffrey85
-
-
-
-
