OP
OP
I rarely clean my pumps and they don't get clogged with detritus.
Detritus is it as bad as some make out?
- Thread starter atoll
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Paul B
10K Club member
Excellence Award
Reef Tank 365
Reef Of The Month
Article Contributor
Rock Pool Reef Keepers
Brandon, I am not sure about that. A month ago my undergravel filter tube to the left side of my tank broke and I can't fix it until I move and take everything out of the tank and I have not been able to clean anything under my rocks in maybe 12 years because everything grew together and I can't move anything. I can only diatom very small parts of my gravel but that doesn't seem to mean anything. I only do that maybe once a year and now it seems sily because I have too many rocks to get much out. There is no detritus seen in my tank but when I remove that gravel in a few weeks, the tank will look like tar and I won't be able to see a half inch into it. I am sure of it and I will take pictures. There is probably detritus in there mixed with Columbus underwear. Under the UG filter plate must be almost clogged because I could never clean under there and have not done that in many years, I can't even remember when I did it but I know I did it at least once.
I personally don't think detritus does anything in a functioning, healthy reef. It just provides homes for micro diversity which is what I am going for in a natural tank.
In a few weeks when I move, I plan to rinse my gravel off with NSW as I am moving next to the sea.
But of course I may be wrong as I am not the God of Detritus.
OP
OP
Lots of thoughts on this thread about detritus but little scientific information which is strange given if you report something you have done showing an improvement its of dismissed as unsubstantiated. When we don't do something and all seems well people shy away from it. Detritus has even been proven beneficial to the health of many corals as it feeds many SPS. I know we can go on about it being different in our aquariums than on the reef but what isn't.
Randy Holmes-Farley
Reef Chemist
Staff member
Super Moderator
Excellence Award
Expert Contributor
Article Contributor
R2R Research
My Tank Thread
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2014
- Messages
- 67,498
- Reaction score
- 63,894
You gambled, and apparently won the bet. Others would not.
We have ways to move beyond custom technique and into hard measure for some fun on paper too
Why not get some updated readings for 2018 from posters here who have organics/will measure
Aerate all samples 48 hrs/keep salinity const/aerobic degestion time then post various readings of our skimmate on various settings, some sandbed phew, we can at least attach some sort of token value to the stuff we either export or enjoy
Need a decent data set on peoples pre and post sandbed cleaning po4 and nitrate readings too, we can get into numbers in the thread Atoll.
It still seems to me that classic sandbed mineralization should be able to be measured in incrementally reducing nutrient levels as dredges are taken at top, mid bottom depths with a stick and tape and hose. We never got that once across all aquarium detritus posts on the internet
So...
Who wants to post the first reef tank dredge sample in recorded history? I would but I dont own any reefing test kits. This thread / decent place, our readers have ways to interestingly measure detritus and cousins (skimmate)
Hose+tape to stick+shove in corner of 10+ yr sandbed+siphon muck+aerate two days=measure of eutrophic fuel variable. To do it right, elevate the temp of the sample to about 88 for the two days, let’s get a good ferment going heh
Why not get some updated readings for 2018 from posters here who have organics/will measure
Aerate all samples 48 hrs/keep salinity const/aerobic degestion time then post various readings of our skimmate on various settings, some sandbed phew, we can at least attach some sort of token value to the stuff we either export or enjoy
Need a decent data set on peoples pre and post sandbed cleaning po4 and nitrate readings too, we can get into numbers in the thread Atoll.
It still seems to me that classic sandbed mineralization should be able to be measured in incrementally reducing nutrient levels as dredges are taken at top, mid bottom depths with a stick and tape and hose. We never got that once across all aquarium detritus posts on the internet
So...
Who wants to post the first reef tank dredge sample in recorded history? I would but I dont own any reefing test kits. This thread / decent place, our readers have ways to interestingly measure detritus and cousins (skimmate)
Hose+tape to stick+shove in corner of 10+ yr sandbed+siphon muck+aerate two days=measure of eutrophic fuel variable. To do it right, elevate the temp of the sample to about 88 for the two days, let’s get a good ferment going heh
Last edited:
steveaus10
Community Member
my sump has ample detritis macro and crushed coral I have a skimz skimmer and a light bioload never any issues and I rarely bother my sand in my dt this works for me not sure it would for every one
Paul B
10K Club member
Excellence Award
Reef Tank 365
Reef Of The Month
Article Contributor
Rock Pool Reef Keepers
That is correct, I used Tap water for about ten years, then my water company added Zinc Orthophosphate to the water to prevent corrosion in the pipes. I changed the water that day and lost almost my entire livestock in a few minutes. I would have older fish if it were not for that. Only my fireclown survived of the fish and he is now 27.
how much poo does one want to keep as a pet? i prefer as close to zero as possible, but others prefer a significant amount. if i find out that i would need to feed "detritus" (marine snow...) than fine, but this still puts me in control of the amount of N and P (both inorganic and organic) in the system. i am in control, i am not at the mercy of various population explosions and crashes.
looking at the marine phosphate pyramid is helpful in seeing how much material is needed to support each organism above. i used this page for the following graphic. it also has a lot of other graphics that help illustrate that P is sunk in the abyss, its primary recycling method is plate tectonics.
when discussing trophic states it is important to note all N and P, not just the inorganic. the more organisms that are in the system, the more food and waste they need and produce. the best indicator of a systems trophic state is the amount and what kind of organisms are in the system. the more of them, the higher the trophic state of the system. the greater the diversity, the greater the amount of total nutrients in the system. it takes a lot of pet poo to create "detritus" to feed corals.
here is an interesting graphic done by a member (FutureDoc) on another forum:
It helps to get an idea on what nutrients the various methods of nutrient exports we utilize can remove. also a good aid at seeing what the poo pet feeds. a good illustration on how algae is not able to utilize organic N and P and must wait for bacteria and/or another organism to convert it to inorganic before it can be utilized. using algae to export N and P is not the most efficient way to remove N and P. yes, it is a way, but it is not at the source of the N and P.
G~
looking at the marine phosphate pyramid is helpful in seeing how much material is needed to support each organism above. i used this page for the following graphic. it also has a lot of other graphics that help illustrate that P is sunk in the abyss, its primary recycling method is plate tectonics.
when discussing trophic states it is important to note all N and P, not just the inorganic. the more organisms that are in the system, the more food and waste they need and produce. the best indicator of a systems trophic state is the amount and what kind of organisms are in the system. the more of them, the higher the trophic state of the system. the greater the diversity, the greater the amount of total nutrients in the system. it takes a lot of pet poo to create "detritus" to feed corals.
here is an interesting graphic done by a member (FutureDoc) on another forum:
It helps to get an idea on what nutrients the various methods of nutrient exports we utilize can remove. also a good aid at seeing what the poo pet feeds. a good illustration on how algae is not able to utilize organic N and P and must wait for bacteria and/or another organism to convert it to inorganic before it can be utilized. using algae to export N and P is not the most efficient way to remove N and P. yes, it is a way, but it is not at the source of the N and P.
G~
I do not want to be in control. I know that I am not going to be as good about it as nature is - I have never had crashes or spikes in bacteria or microfauna, but I do keep my tank pretty stable. I want the tank to find an "equilibrium" with bacteria and microfauna working every second of every day. I am not a robot or machine and I have times where I can go weeks without doing much more than feeding the fish and a quick glance - some people can be robotic, but that is not me. Sand, real live rock (porous from the pacific), huge skimmer, CaRx, fuge and routine maintenance with water changes, sump cleaning and sand vacuuming (after a while) works. The sand and rock keep the N very near to zero and the aragonite will bind/buffer massive amounts of P, if needed, when the fuges and water changes are not at 100% and give the P back up later when the fuge is back to 100% and I start to change water again.
I do not want poo in my system either, but I do want a system that can keep running for a year or more if "life happens." My system keeps it's self at .1n and .01p, but I would keep it this low anyway since I probably have room in the aragonite structures to bind phosphate for a year or more if I needed to let maintenance lapse.
I guess that I want the tank to figure out the hour-to-hour or day-to-day and I will get in there every few weeks and un-gum the works with some cleaning and fresh water.
I do not want poo in my system either, but I do want a system that can keep running for a year or more if "life happens." My system keeps it's self at .1n and .01p, but I would keep it this low anyway since I probably have room in the aragonite structures to bind phosphate for a year or more if I needed to let maintenance lapse.
I guess that I want the tank to figure out the hour-to-hour or day-to-day and I will get in there every few weeks and un-gum the works with some cleaning and fresh water.
i am not saying that nature is not in control. our systems are bacterial driven. no way around that. i am just keeping the total amount of nutrients in the system to a minimum, nothing more. the less total nutrients in the system the less risk of any sudden fluxes that can cause changes in the trophic state of the system. i see no need in feeding organisms i do not really care about, and i feed a lot. i do not want to worry that i may be feeding to much, or to little. if i can get the leftovers/detritus out as fast as it is produced, than there is not going to be a change in trophic state of the system because of my feeding.
if one wants to use the benthos as a food supply, than there must also have enough resources to support them. you can not have one without the other. the benthos needs food and a significant amount of it. they also produce a significant amount of waste.
G~
if one wants to use the benthos as a food supply, than there must also have enough resources to support them. you can not have one without the other. the benthos needs food and a significant amount of it. they also produce a significant amount of waste.
G~
Paul B
10K Club member
Excellence Award
Reef Tank 365
Reef Of The Month
Article Contributor
Rock Pool Reef Keepers
I agree with this. I am not sure why so many people have so many problems, mini cycles and crashes, but I feel the more natural, the better. I also think we add to many things to try to change or cure too many things that don't need changing or curing. I also never see any "sudden fluxes that change the tropic state of my tank". It just keeps living and doing what it is supposed to do with almost no help from me.
Quote:
:There should be an additional arrow between that and bacteria: Un quote
If there were any more arrows, it would look like Custers Last Stand
(sorry)
all esoterics go flying out the window when someone sends a private message: help, my tank is dying and ive spent years and $ on it, what can we do.
responder has to use concrete actions, guessing with other peoples $ gets you drummed out of reefdom
if someone is getting those pms, and producing results within 80 months for the reefer asking for help, they're mitigating detritus if they're rescuing tanks consistently. threads to the contrary will show otherwise.
To get other people's tanks to line up where they post such happiness after the arrest/tuning, not just one offs but as a pattern, requires clean tank restarts I think.
Sure, people might have dosed this or that temporary to knock out an invasion, but theres consistency in large threads that simply remove detritus. tank behaviors that used to vary wildly start to line up/consistent. away from plant growth dominance and into oligotrophic conditions, hard to do with messy sandbeds.
Don't think oligo means starvation either... we can have tons of nicely diverse and undegraded proteins in suspension that feeds and delivers plankton quite well, while waters test super clean for dissolved wastes. that at least describes to me why such a dichotomy exists between what it takes to keep fixing invaded reefs vs the long-practiced who's reefs don't display any troubles given the maturity.
Although the old school ways involve allowing invasions to wax and wane as they command, typically months of 'ugly phase' people are increasingly demanding to always enjoy their reefs, day 1 to day 3000. that's what brings in the tank cleaners.
given any set of 20 cyano or spirulina invaded reefs, 99% of them have sandbeds that cannot pass a clouding test.
if we rip cleaned all 20, 18 of them would comply and sustain that way within 24 hours of work. 2 would require more work, none would have any loss of higher organisms or corals. none, not any losses, in pages and pages of work.
if we leave the filth in the tank and treat 20 invaded tanks by spiking nutrients, or lowering them w GFO, then it takes 10 months for 2 of them to comply, many corals get bleached, and the rest are told to keep waiting under blanketing till nature takes its course.
there is a new public demand to be uninvaded. many new biotic additives are being marketed for this reason, many of the ones are aimed at detritus storage bc it matters in most aging tanks.
you know those dissolvable strips you saw on reefcleaners from two aquarium shows ago, the ones that are tank probiotics which reduce waste and sludge? There are bottle dosers just the same, I saw them in petsmart.
they're designed to offset detritus storage and eutrophication.
By using concentrated bacteria to reduce the size of the detritus, and sometimes oxidizers (perchlorate is used in lake management for example) without us having to manually remove it all to begin with, the dirt is allowed to stay in tank-- is removed by bacterial reduction physically and tank currents and skimming and filters over time...the detritus isn't just going away
conservation of matter... its about as reduced as its going to get physically under normal conditions when we see it as light brown mud. it still carries a nutrient value we can measure.
Its also fair to say a market is developing to allow people to not have to concern over detritus, to leave it in, to work less, to digest it by additives.
responder has to use concrete actions, guessing with other peoples $ gets you drummed out of reefdom
if someone is getting those pms, and producing results within 80 months for the reefer asking for help, they're mitigating detritus if they're rescuing tanks consistently. threads to the contrary will show otherwise.
To get other people's tanks to line up where they post such happiness after the arrest/tuning, not just one offs but as a pattern, requires clean tank restarts I think.
Sure, people might have dosed this or that temporary to knock out an invasion, but theres consistency in large threads that simply remove detritus. tank behaviors that used to vary wildly start to line up/consistent. away from plant growth dominance and into oligotrophic conditions, hard to do with messy sandbeds.
Don't think oligo means starvation either... we can have tons of nicely diverse and undegraded proteins in suspension that feeds and delivers plankton quite well, while waters test super clean for dissolved wastes. that at least describes to me why such a dichotomy exists between what it takes to keep fixing invaded reefs vs the long-practiced who's reefs don't display any troubles given the maturity.
Although the old school ways involve allowing invasions to wax and wane as they command, typically months of 'ugly phase' people are increasingly demanding to always enjoy their reefs, day 1 to day 3000. that's what brings in the tank cleaners.
given any set of 20 cyano or spirulina invaded reefs, 99% of them have sandbeds that cannot pass a clouding test.
if we rip cleaned all 20, 18 of them would comply and sustain that way within 24 hours of work. 2 would require more work, none would have any loss of higher organisms or corals. none, not any losses, in pages and pages of work.
if we leave the filth in the tank and treat 20 invaded tanks by spiking nutrients, or lowering them w GFO, then it takes 10 months for 2 of them to comply, many corals get bleached, and the rest are told to keep waiting under blanketing till nature takes its course.
there is a new public demand to be uninvaded. many new biotic additives are being marketed for this reason, many of the ones are aimed at detritus storage bc it matters in most aging tanks.
you know those dissolvable strips you saw on reefcleaners from two aquarium shows ago, the ones that are tank probiotics which reduce waste and sludge? There are bottle dosers just the same, I saw them in petsmart.
they're designed to offset detritus storage and eutrophication.
By using concentrated bacteria to reduce the size of the detritus, and sometimes oxidizers (perchlorate is used in lake management for example) without us having to manually remove it all to begin with, the dirt is allowed to stay in tank-- is removed by bacterial reduction physically and tank currents and skimming and filters over time...the detritus isn't just going away
conservation of matter... its about as reduced as its going to get physically under normal conditions when we see it as light brown mud. it still carries a nutrient value we can measure.
Its also fair to say a market is developing to allow people to not have to concern over detritus, to leave it in, to work less, to digest it by additives.
Last edited:
What does everybody think is in detritus that needs to be removed as fast as possible? Maybe I am too old school, but I am of the opinion that if you cannot get the detritus out within a few hours while it is still whole, then it is fully scavenged by then and that there is no hurry to remove the left-overs which are mostly benign. I do like to get it out eventually and on a somewhat regular schedule. I do not think that scavenged detritus is full of enough nutrients to really matter too much.
The bacteria in the water column goes to work on the stuff as soon as it is excreted. The fish swarm over to re-eat it. Crabs know where it settles. By the time that it reaches my sump, the stuff has no ability to raise the Nitrate or Phosphate level in freshly mixed saltwater.
What is in broken down detritus that can harm stuff? For me, the whole life cycle is eventually getting a pile of detritus to export that is benign where everything of value was taken from it already.
For phosphates, here is a quote from ReefCentral from Dr. Holmes-Farley. I rely on this quote or my management of nutrients and my opinion of removing detritus, but not being a hurry to do so.
The bacteria in the water column goes to work on the stuff as soon as it is excreted. The fish swarm over to re-eat it. Crabs know where it settles. By the time that it reaches my sump, the stuff has no ability to raise the Nitrate or Phosphate level in freshly mixed saltwater.
What is in broken down detritus that can harm stuff? For me, the whole life cycle is eventually getting a pile of detritus to export that is benign where everything of value was taken from it already.
For phosphates, here is a quote from ReefCentral from Dr. Holmes-Farley. I rely on this quote or my management of nutrients and my opinion of removing detritus, but not being a hurry to do so.
All I need to see now is any link that shows a series of cyano/spirulina tanks getting turned around using any other philosophy other than establishing a clean sandbed. Its a mighty solid theory on paper agreed 1000%
for example, there's a 150 page thread on cyano battles using peroxide, sandbeds are left in place as demanded by everyone.
The outcomes take about 20 pages to attain, and for every 100 submissions we see about 5 partial fixes. its 200 pages not of cures, but of honing down very good data on ID and associated helpful stuff which evolves our treatment options. it is not pages and pages of fixes for the invasion primary.
but there are also threads available with quick, repeated fixes for cyano and spirulina invasions that involve detritus removal and then afterpics of the actual tank that submitted the challenge, several pages worth.
its fun to try and locate the action set that makes outcomes range so differently in the threads
How can people work with detritus and link us those results for distressed tanks? Its agreed in this thread that balance can be attained with detritus in, and lots of gallons agreed.
at least we might frame detritus as the sole actor in a massive number of tank invasions, fair to investigate. I'm sold we can fix cyano and spirulina invasions focusing solely on filth in the sand and rocks, and by simple manual exclusion and export from surfaces. very hard to pull off in large tanks, still detritus implicated our threads show. fun stuff
for example, there's a 150 page thread on cyano battles using peroxide, sandbeds are left in place as demanded by everyone.
The outcomes take about 20 pages to attain, and for every 100 submissions we see about 5 partial fixes. its 200 pages not of cures, but of honing down very good data on ID and associated helpful stuff which evolves our treatment options. it is not pages and pages of fixes for the invasion primary.
but there are also threads available with quick, repeated fixes for cyano and spirulina invasions that involve detritus removal and then afterpics of the actual tank that submitted the challenge, several pages worth.
its fun to try and locate the action set that makes outcomes range so differently in the threads
How can people work with detritus and link us those results for distressed tanks? Its agreed in this thread that balance can be attained with detritus in, and lots of gallons agreed.
at least we might frame detritus as the sole actor in a massive number of tank invasions, fair to investigate. I'm sold we can fix cyano and spirulina invasions focusing solely on filth in the sand and rocks, and by simple manual exclusion and export from surfaces. very hard to pull off in large tanks, still detritus implicated our threads show. fun stuff
Last edited:
Scott Campbell
Active Member
- Joined
- May 26, 2017
- Messages
- 278
- Reaction score
- 614
Apart from my tank's first year - I also have never experienced "sudden fluxes ... in the trophic state" of my tank.
The issue, to me, appears to be a rather straightforward export issue. I would prefer to export organisms (macroalgae, overgrown corals, bacteria, worms, etc.) rather than raw waste. Export of organisms seems easier. I can harvest from an open refugium or skimmer whenever it is convenient for me. Usually just once a week. I honestly don't know how anyone can get "detritus out as fast as it is produced". Do you ever sleep? Go on vacation?
I also don't rely on the benthos as a food supply - but live and available food is a significant side benefit of exporting organisms rather than waste. Which allows me to put less food into the system in the first place. My tank is also filled with rock and coral. I couldn't siphon the tank of detritus even if I wanted to.
And my experience (and this is just my personal experience) is that a tank filled with amphipods, sponges, algae and such is much less susceptible to organism blooms and population swings than a more sterile environment. Simply because there is significantly more competition for available resources. It is much harder for something to run amok.
To Brandon's recurring point - any tank that does not match export to import will eventually have issues. But that doesn't mean detritus is "bad". Ice cream sundaes are wonderful. But if ice cream sundaes keep showing up in my kitchen faster than I can eat them, then eventually I am going to have a mess. I can just throw the sundaes out as soon as they arrive (Reefer Dude approach). Or I can invite people over for an ice cream party each weekend and then show my guests the door once the sundaes are gone (my approach). There is certainly an appealing simplicity to the Reefer Dude approach. But I feel the party guest approach requires less work and less vigilance on my part.
I believe most folks (like Reefer Dude) don't want to feed organisms they don't care about. And most folks (unlike Reefer Dude) aren't willing to hover over their tanks removing waste as it happens. And as Brandon notes, most people also don't want to wait a year or two for a tank to settle in. And people want a lot of fish. And so on. So tanks begin to have problems and a tank re-boot with detritus removal is certainly a great solution. Maybe the best and only solution. But again - the root problem is likely insufficient export relative to import rather than anything intrinsicately evil about unprocessed organic waste.
Most "spiking nutrients" are not from the detritus themselves, but detritus can be a cause just by existing... for nitrate, but not really phosphate.
For Nitrate, accumulation of detritus can keep the sand bed and rock structure from being porous enough to have water efficiently flow into the deeper areas for denitrification. It is not so much that the detritus is leeching or has any residual nitrate, but that it "gums up" the works by not allowing that part of the tank to work efficiently. This is why I start to vacuum my sand starting in year four - almost as soon as I do, the conchs and cucumbers love to hang out in the newly cleaned area.
For Phosphate, this is easier to understand, but most people do not even know about the somewhat-complex relationship between aragonite and phosphate. As described above, P is mostly in the urine. Detritus does not have much, but there is some. Most phosphate issues are when the aragonite starts to get bound-full of phosphate from lack of export over time. Aragonite can hold A LOT of phosphate, but eventually it will get full. This can/will mask maintenance issues in some tanks. Rising P values are blamed on detritus and "old sand," but their root cause was a lack of export because the aragonite sand/rock masked the need for so long. This is why fuges and water changes are necessary even when P is low since there can be massive amount of phosphate in the rock still.
I did an experiment and 57 ppm of phosphate in just a liter of water with less than a pound of aragonite rocks (calcium reactor media) bound down to .175 on a Hannah Ultra low. Unless you have phosphate levels near .01, then you have a lot of phosphate in your tank, it is just bound to aragonite into an "equilibrium" with the tank water. Aragonite can hold at least 300 times the water column value in "storage" and according to Dr. Holmes-Farley, that increases as the amount goes up. Still, it can fill up over time. When you add in that lots of tanks today are started with dry and dead rock full of phosphate already, their saturation point is even less than live rock from the ocean.
Detritus gets the blame for this, but it is not really the reason... directly, at least.
For Nitrate, accumulation of detritus can keep the sand bed and rock structure from being porous enough to have water efficiently flow into the deeper areas for denitrification. It is not so much that the detritus is leeching or has any residual nitrate, but that it "gums up" the works by not allowing that part of the tank to work efficiently. This is why I start to vacuum my sand starting in year four - almost as soon as I do, the conchs and cucumbers love to hang out in the newly cleaned area.
For Phosphate, this is easier to understand, but most people do not even know about the somewhat-complex relationship between aragonite and phosphate. As described above, P is mostly in the urine. Detritus does not have much, but there is some. Most phosphate issues are when the aragonite starts to get bound-full of phosphate from lack of export over time. Aragonite can hold A LOT of phosphate, but eventually it will get full. This can/will mask maintenance issues in some tanks. Rising P values are blamed on detritus and "old sand," but their root cause was a lack of export because the aragonite sand/rock masked the need for so long. This is why fuges and water changes are necessary even when P is low since there can be massive amount of phosphate in the rock still.
I did an experiment and 57 ppm of phosphate in just a liter of water with less than a pound of aragonite rocks (calcium reactor media) bound down to .175 on a Hannah Ultra low. Unless you have phosphate levels near .01, then you have a lot of phosphate in your tank, it is just bound to aragonite into an "equilibrium" with the tank water. Aragonite can hold at least 300 times the water column value in "storage" and according to Dr. Holmes-Farley, that increases as the amount goes up. Still, it can fill up over time. When you add in that lots of tanks today are started with dry and dead rock full of phosphate already, their saturation point is even less than live rock from the ocean.
Detritus gets the blame for this, but it is not really the reason... directly, at least.
the relationship between aragonite, P, and bacteria is very important in our systems. the equilibrium state of calcium carbonate and P can be quite different between very localized areas. between LR and substrate. LR can have flow all around it and the more flow the better for the removal of any bacterial flock that can accumulate. in a substrate this is not as possible. gravity and even the benthos are not able to remove the bacterial flock (detritus). it is slowly worked down into a substrate. we can test this as any substrate of a few months old when stirred will produce grey detritus. the more bacterial flock/detritus in the substrate the higher the localized P equilibrium.
any disturbance of a large amount of detritus/substrate can cause a sudden spike in nutrients. a PH falling and stirring up the substrate. a light over an ATS/live sump going out. any large group of organism(s) is a nutrient sink and has the potential to release its bound nutrients if it dies. the potential is there for all of its bound nutrients to be released. if it wasn't there, the potential is not there.
with large nutrient sinks it is difficult to tell where the balance between imports and exports are as they can take in a lot of nutrients and still give "good parameters". if there is significant grown in a given support organism, than this is a good indicator that the exports are not keeping up with the imports.
as for the sundaes. what are you doing with all of the waste that your guests are producing while they are in the house consuming the sundaes? sorry, you can come over and have sundaes every week, but you are not allowed to use the restroom or breathe while doing so. if any sundae consumers in the house were to use the restroom, than they would be exporting waste, which is not applicable in this comparison as this waste is a pet in order to support the higher organism used for nutrient export (algae, as algae is not able to utilize organic nutrients). imports and exports would not be in equilibrium.
i do not hover over my systems. far from it. i am probably one of the laziest reefers out there. i do however design my systems for detrital export. i have tons of flow (72X). i have CLS's located behind LR. i run BB. i run skimmers with more throughput than most (1000gph), and i make sure that all of the water that goes through the sump (setup backwards from a normal sump) will go through the skimmer at least once before being returned to the display (return 800gph). i do not have any live sumps (hobby refugiums). i have filter socks on the drain lines that are replaced every few days. every few months i would hit some areas in the display to remove accumulated sand from bacterial activity that is to heavy to make it to the sump.
G~
any disturbance of a large amount of detritus/substrate can cause a sudden spike in nutrients. a PH falling and stirring up the substrate. a light over an ATS/live sump going out. any large group of organism(s) is a nutrient sink and has the potential to release its bound nutrients if it dies. the potential is there for all of its bound nutrients to be released. if it wasn't there, the potential is not there.
with large nutrient sinks it is difficult to tell where the balance between imports and exports are as they can take in a lot of nutrients and still give "good parameters". if there is significant grown in a given support organism, than this is a good indicator that the exports are not keeping up with the imports.
as for the sundaes. what are you doing with all of the waste that your guests are producing while they are in the house consuming the sundaes? sorry, you can come over and have sundaes every week, but you are not allowed to use the restroom or breathe while doing so.
if any sundae consumers in the house were to use the restroom, than they would be exporting waste, which is not applicable in this comparison as this waste is a pet in order to support the higher organism used for nutrient export (algae, as algae is not able to utilize organic nutrients). imports and exports would not be in equilibrium.i do not hover over my systems. far from it. i am probably one of the laziest reefers out there. i do however design my systems for detrital export. i have tons of flow (72X). i have CLS's located behind LR. i run BB. i run skimmers with more throughput than most (1000gph), and i make sure that all of the water that goes through the sump (setup backwards from a normal sump) will go through the skimmer at least once before being returned to the display (return 800gph). i do not have any live sumps (hobby refugiums). i have filter socks on the drain lines that are replaced every few days. every few months i would hit some areas in the display to remove accumulated sand from bacterial activity that is to heavy to make it to the sump.
G~
ca1ore
10K Club member
Excellence Award
Reef Tank 365
CTARS Member
Article Contributor
R2R TV Featured
Does everybody think that? Maybe most people do because they haven't thought it though, have been told that detritus is bad, or think it just 'looks' bad
. Dunno! I've always tried to have as diverse an ecosystem as possible (which is why I would never start a reef tank with dry rock), figuring that with even the most obsessive vacuuming (which I have neither the energy nor the inclination to do), much of it will break down in the tank so might as well feed as many mouths as possible. Last time I did an aesthetic vacuum, hundreds of tiny white microstars were mixed in with the vaccumate (is there such a word?) - so I just poured it all back into my cryptic fuge.
I think that a lot of it is twofold. First, companies can sell more products if they make it an issue, so you "articles" and "videos (infomercials)" extolling the virtues of their stuff to keep tanks super clean... it is an easy sell since flush-it-down is more common for humans than an ecosystem. Second, it is easy to blame when things go wrong, rather than look for the root cause - detritus causing massive problems can happen, but it is about as rare as a screw dissolving in your tank, lawn-weed spray from the neighbor three-doors-down that came in through the window and got into your tank or a crash relating to having your hands in the tank a day after changing oil in your car... most all unicorns, IMO.
ca1ore
10K Club member
Excellence Award
Reef Tank 365
CTARS Member
Article Contributor
R2R TV Featured
Oh man, I just came inside because my neighbor was spraying for mosquitos while I was changing the oil in my car; fed the fish and now I cannot find that screw I was carrying ..... my tank is doomed!
