Detritus is it as bad as some make out?

[Scott Campbell]

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~

My main tank is a bare bottom tank with the exception of a small area in the center for my wrasse. Which is stirred up nightly. I agree access to detritus in a substrate can be severely limited in certain situations - which is problematic. And I have found it more difficult to sustain substrate microfauna. I use Figi mud in my refugium which seems a bit easier for the microfauna to navigate. But that is really a substrate issue more than a "detritus is bad" issue.

And yes - microfauna and bacteria populations will increase CO2 levels. But macroalgae growth will decrease CO2 levels. I suspect a refugium's overall effect on pH is rather neutral if not beneficial. So it seems a stretch to claim harvesting algae, bacteria & microfauna is a risk to tank pH levels.

And yes - microfauna, bacteria & algae are nutrient sinks. But so is everything that is alive in a tank. A tank full of coral is a huge nutrient sink. A fish is a nutrient sink. Anything can die and release bound nutrients. It seems odd to argue that a tank with less things living in it is better. I suppose a tank with one fish poses less risk than a tank with six fish. But it's not all about reducing risk. Mostly it just strikes me that you don't like algae and amphipods and prefer not to grow them. That's perfectly fine - but that's not really an argument against growing and harvesting organisms as a tank export mechanism.

Again, this is basically just an import / export issue. You prefer to export waste prior to decomposition. Which of course works. But you lose out on live food for your fish and corals. Siphoning, significant water changes and frequent filter sock replacements seems much more labor intensive and aquarist dependent than occasionally harvesting algae and bacteria. (I personally have no interest in getting "detritus out as fast as it is produced".) Harvesting biomass after waste decomposition also seems more adaptive to a tank's changing water chemistry. You can do whatever you want with your own tank but I'm still of the opinion detritus is a benign source of nutrients.

 

[2CC's]

Thats a great write up, I have a 50 cube and minimal sump space. I do have detritus in my sump but I also run a mesh filter sock on my system most days. I started my system with all dry rock ....... so here's the golden question, How does one with a smaller system build a healthy micro fauna and pod population?

So i have read the entire post - but have not seen a definitive answer to @Curryb15 question - how does one build a healthy micro fauna and pod population? I would invest into having more biodiversity in my system (55 gal DT w 20 gal chaeto & lr, 20 gal inline frag)

 

[jda]

So i have read the entire post - but have not seen a definitive answer to @Curryb15 question - how does one build a healthy micro fauna and pod population? I would invest into having more biodiversity in my system (55 gal DT w 20 gal chaeto & lr, 20 gal inline frag)

Time. Patience. Get some rocks from a fellow hobbyist that are full of crypic sponges, worms, stars and pods. Keep water chemistry ideal so that they can flourish (a lot of this will not do well in higher N and P). It can take up to two years to have a super-diverse tank.

 

[brandon429]

buy the animals, algen has tons as do other sites.

clean the wretchedness out of the sandbed first using our skip cycle technique where the mud is removed if a given tank is under invasion, then add a bunch of living stuff from those sites if this is invasion reaction.

if its just a tank doing fine and wanting more pods, the diversity avail now is amazing and theyre all live and they'll mix into the muck just fine.

All these animals added produce, not consume detritus. Nothing above bacteria gets to opt out of that. Animals are either busy enough in the sandbed to actually kick up waste into water column for actual removal (goby does this well) and others are just poop factories, like starfish and worms. interesting dual edged sword of adding things to muck.

gammarids
brittle star ophiuroids which I like a lot
various worms for the sand
pods of every type imaginable and live phyto too

 

[Paul B]

So i have read the entire post - but have not seen a definitive answer to @Curryb15 question - how does one build a healthy micro fauna and pod population? I would invest into having more biodiversity in my system (55 gal DT w 20 gal chaeto & lr, 20 gal inline frag)

I go to the ocean and pick up a nice rock full of life, and throw it in my tank.





5 gallons of amphipods and other life. I just dump it in.

 

[daytonajim00]

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....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~

Not the source of N and P! "Hint. Everything we put in our tanks produces phosphates", a wise man once said that! I've been following your theory for years! I was so surprised to see you here at R2R. This site just took it to the next level! People, this dude is a reefing saint! I know there's more than 2 ways to skin a cat but I love the theories this dude has developed in the past decade!

 

[daytonajim00]

I go to the ocean and pick up a nice rock full of life, and throw it in my tank.

Awesome Pual B! I live in West Palm Beach and I have been playing with the idea of "importing" a little diversity myself- in an ethical way of course. To piggy back off G's comment and yours combined, that's exactly the approach I want:

1. Clean system detritus wise
-Vacuum by skimming top sand bed and mix it up a little at a time
-Blast rocks every now and then
-Remove settling in my BB sump/refugium
2. Keep it simple with proper water changes and minimal dosing
-10% a week; sometimes skip a week and go 20%
-Run skimmer
-Dose little based on need.
-Simple like carbon flossing and kalk top-off
3. Supporting a high level of biodiversity.
-Good pod population in my sump/refugium
-Macro's for a little extra export
-Importing bio-diversity once a blue moon like Pual B does

That is what I'm aiming to do. The future should be streamlined! Good stuff.

 

[Elegance Coral]

There's a good reason why the two authors, mentioned in the first post, are now MIA from the hobby. (Eric Borneman and Ron Shemik.) IMHO, Their methods have crashed more tanks than natural disasters. Including their own tanks. Borneman killed off his tank repeatedly, only to start it back up doing the exact same thing that killed it in the first place.

There are as many different types of hobbyists as there are tanks. I think that's great. However, it's truly sad to see people misled into believing falsehoods about how mother nature works in their systems. If hobbyists like to see all kinds of algae, little bugs, and worms in their tanks, cool. They can be incredibly interesting. If this is the goal, then allowing detritus to accumulate is probably a good idea. If hobbyists want to grow and keep animals from healthy, growing, coral reefs, the accumulation of detritus becomes a very bad idea. Just as nutrient enrichment of coral reefs around the world, is a very bad idea.

This doesn't have to be overly complicated, and we don't need to break it down into its intricate little biological, and chemical, pieces, for us to understand the basics of how it works. Most of us, even the newbie, has a basic understanding of how all this works. Unfortunately, authors like the two above, have convinced many hobbyists to abandon their own common sense, and fallow their absurd teachings.

Look at it like this........
We can take a mocking bird and put it in a cage. If we feed and water the bird, and keep the tray on the bottom of the cage clean, the bird should live a long healthy life. What happens if we do everything the same, other than keeping the tray clean on the bottom? Well..... At first the birds droppings and left over food will accumulate on the bottom. Microbes of many different types will quickly inhabit this accumulated organic matter, and it will begin to rot. Some of the bird seed that dropped into the tray may begin to sprout and grow plant life. Fueled by the inorganics produced by this rotting organic matter. We could even trim back this plant life, harvesting a portion, and remove "nutrients" from the system in the process. In time, this accumulating, and rotting, organic matter will begin to attract insects and their larvae. The mocking bird can now feed on the live insects and their larvae. This is the same process that those authors advocate for our aquariums. Allow organic matter to accumulate and rot. Allow bugs and worms to grow and reproduce in this rotting organic matter so that our pets can eat them. Allow plants to grow so we can harvest a portion periodically, which removes unwanted nutrients.

No one...... Not one person I have ever met, would do such a thing to a bird, or any other life kept as a pet. (other than this hobby) Everyone knows this would be a very bad idea for the mocking bird, and would likely lead to sickness and an early demise of the bird. This same basic principal holds true for virtually any animal we keep in a small enclosure. Reptile, bird, rodent, dog, cat........... It doesn't matter. Even the kid that wins a goldfish at the fair quickly learns the importance of keeping the rotting organic matter from accumulating on the bottom of the fish bowl. Everyone understands the importance of cleaning up after, and removing organic waste, from small enclosures where we keep animals. Everyone understands that if we don't, the animal is highly likely to get sick and die. This is why we sweep, mop, and vacuum the floors in our homes, and why hospitals are kept clean. We don't want to get sick and die. If we wouldn't do this to any other animal we keep in small enclosures, why would we do it to some of the most environmentally sensitive creatures on the planet?????????

I find it sad that authors like these have been so successful, but I understand how it happened. Life under the waves just seems soooo alien to us. Even though it really isn't. This makes it easy for people to believe that life under the waves lives by a completely different set of laws than life on land. Even though it doesn't. These authors didn't do it by themselves either. They had help. The industry behind the hobby. Go to virtually any LFS in the country. They will have a wall full of bottles of potions that are said to cure every problem you could possibly have. Many of those problems are caused either directly, or indirectly, by the pile of rot and decay (detritus) left in the system.

So..... To answer the question of this thread,
"Detritus is it as bad as some make out?"
The answer is yes. It is as bad or worse than some make it out to be.

JMHO
Peace
EC

 

[Reefin Dude]

organic material will produce N and P. whether it is alive or not, but poo makes one heck of a good fertilizer. hydroponics love fish poo.

not my theories. just following the information put down by Spanky/Bomber and a few others on various sites that have serious rabbit hole research issues.

the problem with using decomposition for nutrient exportation, is that it can never balance imports. imports will always be greater than exports. that darn energy pyramid.

i do not do significant water changes. i change enough water to remove the detritus that has accumulated since the last water change. in most cases this is 5g. mainly because 5g is easy to measure. whether it was the 125, 300g, or 30g.

yes, people can do whichever they prefer. i am not trying to force anybody one way or the other. i am just trying to get the science out there, so that someone can make an informed decision and if so inclined the information to start exploring down as many nutrient rabbit holes they care to research. this is not easy stuff. the P trail is complicated and involves a lot more than just the organisms we keep.

the FutureDoc chart at the top of this page is the best visual representation i have seen for helping anybody in this hobby to get a grasp on what actually exports what. why somethings that we were told helped can in fact be doing nothing. mainly water changes that only change water. does very little for nutrient exportation. even algae is a poor nutrient export as it misses most of the available nutrients.

G~

 

[Sallstrom]

There's a good reason why the two authors, mentioned in the first post, are now MIA from the hobby. (Eric Borneman and Ron Shemik.) IMHO, Their methods have crashed more tanks than natural disasters. Including their own tanks. Borneman killed off his tank repeatedly, only to start it back up doing the exact same thing that killed it in the first place.

There are as many different types of hobbyists as there are tanks. I think that's great. However, it's truly sad to see people misled into believing falsehoods about how mother nature works in their systems. If hobbyists like to see all kinds of algae, little bugs, and worms in their tanks, cool. They can be incredibly interesting. If this is the goal, then allowing detritus to accumulate is probably a good idea. If hobbyists want to grow and keep animals from healthy, growing, coral reefs, the accumulation of detritus becomes a very bad idea. Just as nutrient enrichment of coral reefs around the world, is a very bad idea.

This doesn't have to be overly complicated, and we don't need to break it down into its intricate little biological, and chemical, pieces, for us to understand the basics of how it works. Most of us, even the newbie, has a basic understanding of how all this works. Unfortunately, authors like the two above, have convinced many hobbyists to abandon their own common sense, and fallow their absurd teachings.

Look at it like this........
We can take a mocking bird and put it in a cage. If we feed and water the bird, and keep the tray on the bottom of the cage clean, the bird should live a long healthy life. What happens if we do everything the same, other than keeping the tray clean on the bottom? Well..... At first the birds droppings and left over food will accumulate on the bottom. Microbes of many different types will quickly inhabit this accumulated organic matter, and it will begin to rot. Some of the bird seed that dropped into the tray may begin to sprout and grow plant life. Fueled by the inorganics produced by this rotting organic matter. We could even trim back this plant life, harvesting a portion, and remove "nutrients" from the system in the process. In time, this accumulating, and rotting, organic matter will begin to attract insects and their larvae. The mocking bird can now feed on the live insects and their larvae. This is the same process that those authors advocate for our aquariums. Allow organic matter to accumulate and rot. Allow bugs and worms to grow and reproduce in this rotting organic matter so that our pets can eat them. Allow plants to grow so we can harvest a portion periodically, which removes unwanted nutrients.

No one...... Not one person I have ever met, would do such a thing to a bird, or any other life kept as a pet. (other than this hobby) Everyone knows this would be a very bad idea for the mocking bird, and would likely lead to sickness and an early demise of the bird. This same basic principal holds true for virtually any animal we keep in a small enclosure. Reptile, bird, rodent, dog, cat........... It doesn't matter. Even the kid that wins a goldfish at the fair quickly learns the importance of keeping the rotting organic matter from accumulating on the bottom of the fish bowl. Everyone understands the importance of cleaning up after, and removing organic waste, from small enclosures where we keep animals. Everyone understands that if we don't, the animal is highly likely to get sick and die. This is why we sweep, mop, and vacuum the floors in our homes, and why hospitals are kept clean. We don't want to get sick and die. If we wouldn't do this to any other animal we keep in small enclosures, why would we do it to some of the most environmentally sensitive creatures on the planet?????????

I find it sad that authors like these have been so successful, but I understand how it happened. Life under the waves just seems soooo alien to us. Even though it really isn't. This makes it easy for people to believe that life under the waves lives by a completely different set of laws than life on land. Even though it doesn't. These authors didn't do it by themselves either. They had help. The industry behind the hobby. Go to virtually any LFS in the country. They will have a wall full of bottles of potions that are said to cure every problem you could possibly have. Many of those problems are caused either directly, or indirectly, by the pile of rot and decay (detritus) left in the system.

So..... To answer the question of this thread,
"Detritus is it as bad as some make out?"
The answer is yes. It is as bad or worse than some make it out.

JMHO
Peace
EC

It sound like a sterile environment is what you are going for.
IMO what we want to create in a reef tank is an ecosystem. With all the organisms needed to take care of some fish poop and leftovers. Plus animals that eat algae and detritus etc. And eats other things we don't want in our tanks.
Sure, the ecosystem might need export in some ways. Or needs input of nutrients in other cases. It all depends on how the system is designed.
Anyway, it's not all black and white, that was kind of my point

Have a great day!

/ David

 

[Reefin Dude]

why do we want to create an ecosystem? no other livestock hobby or industry does this. it is a waste of resources. if an ecosystem is so important, than why do we have running water and we take out the trash at our houses? the "sand experts" of the 2000's did a great disservice to the hobby. what made things "work" was the total dependence on the substrate nutrient sink. it was not the "ecosystem" that was working, it was just the nutrient sink willingly taking in all of the material we gave it until it just could not take any more and then it crashes. i have seen so many fantastic tanks crash from this in person it is sad.

why does everyone seem to think that an aggressive detrital removal system is sterile? it is far from it. it will have all of the needed bacteria needed to process any nutrients that are available just like any other system. if sterile means less waste everywhere, then yes, but if sterile means without bacteria, than this is far from true. it is still a bacterial run system.

G~

 

[Sallstrom]

why do we want to create an ecosystem? no other livestock hobby or industry does this. it is a waste of resources. if an ecosystem is so important, than why do we have running water and we take out the trash at our houses? the "sand experts" of the 2000's did a great disservice to the hobby. what made things "work" was the total dependence on the substrate nutrient sink. it was not the "ecosystem" that was working, it was just the nutrient sink willingly taking in all of the material we gave it until it just could not take any more and then it crashes. i have seen so many fantastic tanks crash from this in person it is sad.

why does everyone seem to think that an aggressive detrital removal system is sterile? it is far from it. it will have all of the needed bacteria needed to process any nutrients that are available just like any other system. if sterile means less waste everywhere, then yes, but if sterile means without bacteria, than this is far from true. it is still a bacterial run system.

G~

The bacteria you describe is a part of what I mean with the word ecosystem.
And I agree, you don't turn the sand sterile by vacuum it.
But I've seen some not so good examples of aquariums with super life support systems with UV-C, ozone, skimmers and filters etc, and a display tank not working. And that was the tanks that came to mind in this case.

Anyway, I think it's possible to create a system where a little detritus is fine. But it all depends on how the system is designed and what kind of bioload it has.

/ David

 

[Paul B]

Then why didn't my tank crash 35 years ago? I stir up places where I can reach over my UG filter once a year but I have only cleaned under the UG filter plates (I think) once in 40 years. There is detritus under there from the 70s. No crash yet. Isn't that interesting. I over feed to keep everything spawning and don't have to quarantine because nothing dies from sewage, nitrates or bird poo.
You can see no detritus in my tank but if I stirred that gravel, the water would look like tar. I am moving this tank in a few weeks and will take pictures. Not all the nutrients we put in stay there. Nitrate which is an end product of a lot of metabolic processes is turned to gas by anerobic bacteria and bubbles out of the tank. MY fish are very healthy, many are spawning and some are 27 years old. They don't seem to mind swimming in a toxic waste dump.
If that were not so, my tank would not exist. So if even one successful very old tank lives, your theory of nutrients along with bird droppings, sweeping the floor, removing organic waste goes out the window, so you should open that window now



Every year I dump in a couple of five gallon buckets of amphipods, copepods, mud and other diversity. I want the bacteria. I can prove everything I post in pictures and I didn't make up too much of it.

 

[brandon429]

context to frame Pauls post:

he has rare access to the most diverse and nutrient-sound change water and mud/substrate possible...invaders supported by detritus are well competed against


your average LFS reef aquarist without ocean water and tidal flat refreshment, everyone else reading, bound to be impacted one day lacking the diversification which I agree works well and provides the food chain and fish immunity support, its the ocean transported to your home and agreed sustained to the nth degree of experience no doubt

reproduce that lifespan with petsmart supplies to fit the exact context here IMO.

also, the work you do on this tank in terms of diatom flushing/cloud support and maintenance is well beyond what any keeper does at the 100+ gallon mark. You get brownie pts in my sand rinse thread for being the most active large tanker, not the most conservative of detritus. all in all you have a balance agreed, this is no slight to clearly long term growth and long term stability commands my #1 respect yep


but minus the amazing Fiji-NY mud you have access to, gammarids so thick you can't not step on them, the flushing of the bed which is better than most, and I see detritus care not detritus abandon.

lends credence that detritus carries much weight, and the artistic and scientifically able find offsets

 

[Elegance Coral]

Then why didn't my tank crash 35 years ago? I stir up places where I can reach over my UG filter once a year but I have only cleaned under the UG filter plates (I think) once in 40 years. There is detritus under there from the 70s. No crash yet. Isn't that interesting. I over feed to keep everything spawning and don't have to quarantine because nothing dies from sewage, nitrates or bird poo.
You can see no detritus in my tank but if I stirred that gravel, the water would look like tar. I am moving this tank in a few weeks and will take pictures. Not all the nutrients we put in stay there. Nitrate which is an end product of a lot of metabolic processes is turned to gas by anerobic bacteria and bubbles out of the tank. MY fish are very healthy, many are spawning and some are 27 years old. They don't seem to mind swimming in a toxic waste dump.
If that were not so, my tank would not exist. So if even one successful very old tank lives, your theory of nutrients along with bird droppings, sweeping the floor, removing organic waste goes out the window, so you should open that window now



Every year I dump in a couple of five gallon buckets of amphipods, copepods, mud and other diversity. I want the bacteria. I can prove everything I post in pictures and I didn't make up too much of it.

Now Paul........... It don't work that way.........
Why is Ozzy Osborne still alive????? Does the fact that he's still alive prove that chronic drug and alcohol abuse is good for the human body????

You do many good, and bad, things to your tank. That's the way you like it, so I have no problem with that. Go for it. But, the fact that you do good things for your tank, that offset the bad, is not proof that the bad isn't bad. Science tells us that it is.

 

[Paul B]

, the work you do on this tank in terms of diatom flushing/cloud support and maintenance is well beyond what any keeper does at the 100+ gallon mark.

What is cloud support? I only diatom once a year and I don't even remember doing it this year. If I did, I can't hardly reach anything in there any more so that detritus is packed in there and I could and probably will take a few gallons out of my UG filter soon.

Why is Ozzy Osborne still alive?????

I actually didn't know he was. But I was with Mick Jagger last month and he also looks healthy. Who would have thought!

Does the fact that he's still alive prove that chronic drug and alcohol abuse is good for the human body????

It does not. But the fact that he is still alive proves that drug and alcohol abuse does not necessarily kill you either. There are other factors at work Just like in a tank.
It's like if you can keep a clownfish for 50 years, then that is probably the higher end of their lifespan and many of them should live that long. But few do. OK bad analogy.

But, the fact that you do good things for your tank, that offset the bad, is not proof that the bad isn't bad. Science tells us that it is.

The "Bad" things I assume you are speaking of is adding mud and all that stuff. I am not sure what I do good except feed correctly and never quarantine. But the fact that my tank, and quite a few others are full of detritus and are coincidentally the oldest tanks on here carry some weight. Many, many very clean tanks crash. I think having a very clean tank, just like I feel quarantining everything and not feeding something with live bacteria is the worst things you can so. I do hardly any maintenance and rarely change water, I occasionally dose calcium by hand and I don't have test kits or a hospital tank and if I must say so, many scientific things you read in science journals are IMO wrong. (sorry scientists but it is what it is and history will prove me correct)

This hobby has been in the US since 1971 (yes there was a little in some states and Germany was before the US but lets not dwell on details) People have the same or more problems now than they did than. That is because of inside the box thinking. And ich threads, don't even get me started. It is so silly to let your fish die of ich, but I digress.

Another thing about science and things you read is that for many years I have been submitting articles to Paper magazines and the internet and in every case, with no checking what so ever my stuff has been published as fact. I am an electrician. That is the extent of my formal marine biology training. I could have read this stuff off an orange juice container. Just Google my name and put fish after it, there is all sorts of stuff I wrote that no one checked or questioned.
In the 60s Burgess and Axelrod were writing a lot in scientific journels, I always questioned what they wrote because a lot of it just didn't seem to make sense. Also Dr, I forget how to spell his name Schmeck. Him and I started the same year and we are the same age. I also have always disagreed with him. Having more degrees than a thermometer doesn't mean you know anything about the topic. But you may be able to work in a thermometer factory. It means you sat in an air conditioned classroom for a few years and listened to someone speak who also probably never had a fish tank.
I have a cousin who is a marine biology professor and for that title he had to dive once for 30 minutes. He has never even kept a goldfish and has no idea what he is looking at in my tank. But he is a professor. Titles don't mean much to me.
There is no degree for fish tank keeper.

Much of the "information" we get in this hobby is rumors, hearsay, or something we read someplace or someone told us. I try (very hard) to prove what I write with pictures. I got whatever knowledge I have from either diving or keeping the animal myself because computers were not invented in the 1800s.

These charts people put up are interesting and work in a lab or classroom, not in a real tank. They can be a guide but only a very vague guide.
Search for Undergravel filters and you will find a plethora of wrong information of how they can't possibly work. And yet, mine still works. As a matter of fact, I just bought a new one for when I move and get a slightly larger tank.

Ozzie Osborn. How do you like that. Still alive.

 

[Scott Campbell]

Now Paul........... It don't work that way.........
Why is Ozzy Osborne still alive????? Does the fact that he's still alive prove that chronic drug and alcohol abuse is good for the human body????

You do many good, and bad, things to your tank. That's the way you like it, so I have no problem with that. Go for it. But, the fact that you do good things for your tank, that offset the bad, is not proof that the bad isn't bad. Science tells us that it is.

I'm looking at this Eco-Sphere on my desk that my boys bought me as a Xmas present roughly 10 years ago. You can check out the website if you wish - https://eco-sphere.com/ There are two shrimp still alive after a decade. The shrimp "go poo", algae grows, the shrimp eat the algae. There is a gravel substrate. Nothing removes the poo. It is a self-sustaining small saltwater aquarium. I originally had 5 shrimp. The ecosystem still seems fine despite a staggering 60% loss of life. <lol> So I'm not sure "science" is telling us that recycling of waste is bad and / or impossible for a saltwater aquarium. Note the testimonial by Carl Sagan.

I'm of course not going to replicate a South American rain forest ecosystem for a scarlet macaw in my living room. The choice of animal is certainly relevant. It is complete nonsense to say "It doesn't matter". Scale, size of the animals in question, complexity of the ecosystem are all relevant concerns.

I don't believe it is a huge stretch of the imagination to go from an Eco-Sphere to a larger saltwater ecosystem with fish that "go poo", algae growth, microfauna growth and fish that eat algae and microfauna. I only stock my tank with fish that eat what grows in my tank. I maintain a large variety of invertebrates of different sizes to break down fish waste. I don't use any substrate outside of a small area for my wrasse. I actually put relatively little food in my tank so I have less to export. The fish are able to graze on live food all day long. I harvest a wide variety of biomass - bacteria from carbon dosing, multiple types of macroalgae, bristle worms, small starfish, soft encrusting corals and montipora. I am careful to make sure food input roughly matches biomass output. I send a test to Triton every 3 months to make sure nothing gets out of balance. I honestly have no idea what Reefer Dude's "energy pyramid" is - but my main struggle is export exceeding import. I have to dose calcium, bicarbonate, magnesium, potassium, iron, strontium & iodine. Phosphate and nitrate levels occasionally drop too low and I have to increase the amount of food I add. It is never the case that "import always exceeds export". (As a side note - this forum seems filled with threads about export exceeding import requiring the addition of stump remover or whatever to compensate.) And my tank has no visible detritus. I have no doubt it is piled up under the rocks but I don't care. It is still accessible by the worms and bugs. And the tank is 30 years old and has never crashed. Despite many years of neglect while I raised kids, dealt with cancer and ran a business.

As to the question of "Why attempt an ecosystem?" My answer would be "Why not?" It may not be possible with dogs but it is clearly possible with shrimp. (I don't even know what a dog ecosystem would be. A king-sized bed probably.) I have also been to enough zoos to see animals in very clean concrete pens with fecal waste removed hourly or daily to know that is usually not the best environment for an animal. An enclosure that more fully replicates an animal's natural habitat seems best. That is the appeal of a saltwater tank for me - an opportunity to maintain a somewhat complete ecosystem. An opportunity to better replicate the natural habitat of the animals under my care. Or at least try. I understand the limitations - my choice of fish is constrained, my tank looks "ugly" in comparison to show tanks, I have to be conscious of CO2 exchange, power outages need to be planned for, that sort of stuff. But I'm fine with all that. I have no idea what Reefer Dude means by saying it is "a waste of resources". That also seems like complete nonsense to me. And again, it is really nothing more than export after decomposition rather than export prior to decomposition.

So I would agree that microfauna-filled deep sand beds and algae scrubbers and all the other magic bullet solutions people have argued about for years are rarely as effective as pitched. But that doesn't mean the concept of a self-sustaining tank is contrary to science or necessarily a bad idea or not worth the resources or whatever else you are claiming. You and Reefer Dude sound as dogmatic in opposition as the folks you criticize.

 

[Scott Campbell]

Double Post

 

[Palyzoa]

 

[brandon429]

Ecospheres tolerate the storage of waste longer than any captive system I know, but they’re still finite and slow decline from day one...never nitrogen positive or mass adding, but consumptive in a highly well designed balance agreed to really last a long time. Five yrs was the prior longest I’d read on forums w original shrimp, nice longevity in yours Scott


They follow an interesting biology rule that my mentor Borneman revealed to me: protein recirculating is finite and must be added to the system by rule. There is no self sustaining ecosystems. There are slow dying ones though if protein isn’t refreshed. If Eric was doing things to harm his own tank, it never registered in his advice saving mine...I do miss his threads on RC him and Randy were the top two sages I enjoyed getting tuned by in comeuppance



pico reefers wanted a better egg in 2001> an ecosphere that grows table top sps in it, never dies, and must be exported to stay alive. We were eventually pressed into detritus control

*there are old pico reefs like Maritza the vase reef that do not clean their sandbed* (70 mos running, more sps per gallon than any tank on this board) but as an adjunct, they dose digestion bacteria, sludge digesters not nitrifiers, which help in reduction, and we still do 95% wc which exports the wastes leaked into soln by the approach. Whole waste is still degraded and exported, it’s not stored in today’s mini reef approach so it’s nice to know there are still ways to be hands off with an old sandbed


Everyone who kept small reefs starts out not touching them, hands off bed, due to fear of upset/stability...that just means the approaches recommended here by large tankers have been tried and doc’d for small reefs and hands off didn’t emerge as the reproducible method when dilution is lacking and no invasion was the preference



Ten years with any shrimp Alive is the best I’ve heard of that’s really good and no slight to the egg.

 

[brandon429]

i would also add that tiny plant foraging shrimp are part of the ecosystem that’s gone fully eutrophic, but not sps. So they’re inputting the final high order animals that exist when total plant dominance wins. It’s a smart design for sure but even pods live forever in a tank totally racked by cyano, or dinos...

we have to keep on top of export to prevent eutrophication/invasion for the masses

I don’t class detritus as a reef killer at all, it’s just the reason our tank rescue threads get out twenty or more pages. We are cranking out fixed tanks by fixing detritus stores. There’s no way to undo/reverse eutrophication without removing detritus, but there’s ways to bandaid it for a while

The way I see detritus has been framed by watching twenty thousand pico reefs come and go during messaging and threads. Where elbows and nerf balls weren’t the cause of demise, waste and eutrophication came in a close second. I can guarantee and follow though w guarantee that if a new keeper will start and gimme 90 days with a clean sandbed they’ll not be invaded and there sure as heck won’t be a tank-seeding uglies phase. 100% turnout of working micro tanks, detritus removal is rule #1

To store detritus causes variation across the board in your small reef, outcomes after sixty months vary wildly. But to not store detritus streamlines outcomes and it becomes easy to make the system live with no lifespan limit and no plant takeover as corals should.