Survey Reefers re: vacuuming sand bed.

[fredhlee]

I never stir or vacuum the sandbed, only keep enough snails, urchins, sand dollars to keep the sand clean.

 

[MnFish1]

I disagree.

Real live rock from the ocean is a vector to introduce a large variety of bacteria, worms, crustaceans and other microorganisms that make up a healthy reef, and even serves as temporary homes for many sand dwelling organisms (or organisms with a sand-dwelling stage in their life cycle).

Dry rock does not have this advantage and can only be populated by what we actively choose to add to the tank, and a very limited selection of organisms that may cling to "fish and corals".

A system started with 100% live rock will have significantly higher biodiversity than a system started with just dry rock, or mostly dry rock and a few seed stones. That's just pure mathematics. The trick however, is sustaining that biodiversity in the long term and I suspsect that "most systems" are too aggressively filtered, cleaned and "stirred", to support the complex food webs required.

I would humbly suggest that what you're saying is not completely logical for a reef tank - since many many people have little or no sand on the bottoms of their tanks. In our tanks we don't have anywhere near the 'biodiversity of the ocean'.

 

[MnFish1]

Thanks. That's an important condition which you should have specified earlier. Would have made discussing specifics easier. In that case you may have denitrification in your tank. It doesn't change my other arguments though.


We are still talking about denitrification right? Then that statement is wrong.
First, you need to differentiate between anoxic and anaerobic.
Also, Sewage or reef tank these are the same microrganisms. So in my opinion they do translate to our situation.

A carbon source is obligatory in addition to the electron donor, which in case of denitrification, has to come from oxygen and nitrogen.

One condition is energy consumption

As you can see the energy gain is lower the higher the bacteria needs to go in the denitrification chain. This is tested while offering Glucose as a carbon source. Without carbon no energy.

Another conditions is pH.

If the pH drops below 7 due to low water flow caused by clumped sand particles, then hno2 will start to inhibit denitrification.

These are just two examples because you said: all the the bacteria needs is nitrate. Which isn't true. Denitrification may actually happen in your tank, but I still think that's a rare case in the majority of reefs tanks (at least in significant amounts)

I'm curious - why would an obligate autotroph functioning as a denigrator require carbon (in any more than minimum quantities?

 

[jda]

I don't want to speak for Tavero, but this is one place where research and studies from waste treatment plants do not work for reef tanks, IMO. In many waste treatment plants, the bacteria are lost downstream and they have to make new ones constantly, as well as perform their function of no3 => n2. This does require some sort of carbon for the new organic tissue to grow to replace the lost bacteria. In our tanks, the bacteria population is in a stable place and we don't have to constantly replace them en masse.

If your point was that they don't need carbon to process no3 into n2, then that is correct.

Even going back to the 1990s, some of the speakers at shows cautioned about using waste treatment studies for much in our tanks. There are PLENTY of waste treatment studies out there. DSBs were more in use back then and inquiring minds could find waste treatment analysis in books or on microfiche in many locations.

 

[MnFish1]

I don't want to speak for Tavero, but this is one place where research and studies from waste treatment plants do not work for reef tanks, IMO. In many waste treatment plants, the bacteria are lost downstream and they have to make new ones constantly, as well as perform their function of no3 => n2. This does require some sort of carbon for the new organic tissue to grow to replace the lost bacteria. In our tanks, the bacteria population is in a stable place and we don't have to constantly replace them en masse.

If your point was that they don't need carbon to process no3 into n2, then that is correct.

Even going back to the 1990s, some of the speakers at shows cautioned about using waste treatment studies for much in our tanks. There are PLENTY of waste treatment studies out there. DSBs were more in use back then and inquiring minds could find waste treatment analysis in books or on microfiche in many locations.

That was my point. In order to 'multiply' there has to be some carbon - but in our tanks I believe thats clearly present. The main issue happening in a sand bed (as you said) which is NO3 -->N2 does not require it.

 

[Alexraptor]

I would humbly suggest that what you're saying is not completely logical for a reef tank - since many many people have little or no sand on the bottoms of their tanks. In our tanks we don't have anywhere near the 'biodiversity of the ocean'.

To be fair, this thread is a discussion specifically about systems with 'sand beds', and as such my post should be viewed in that context. Nor did I state or even imply that any one tank has anywhere near the 'biodiversity of the ocean'.

 

[MnFish1]

To be fair, this thread is a discussion specifically about systems with 'sand beds', and as such my post should be viewed in that context. Nor did I state or even imply that any one tank has anywhere near the 'biodiversity of the ocean'.

True, but a lot of the arguments being made are negated by the fact that tanks with no sand bed also do fine. In other words we are debating where to get live sand - when live sand alone is probably not that important to a successful reef tank

Your quote: "Real live rock from the ocean is a vector to introduce a large variety of bacteria, worms, crustaceans and other microorganisms that make up a healthy reef, and even serves as temporary homes for many sand dwelling organisms (or organisms with a sand-dwelling stage in their life cycle)."

My point was real live rock from the ocean may have what you said, but much of this can be rapidly reduced in the aquarium setting. Much like @BeanAnimal suggested, dry rock rapidly becomes live rock, and tanks lose biodiversity over time - as compared to maintaining it. So, while there may be some benefit to adding 'live sand from the ocean' within weeks/months that benefit according to several scientific articles is lost. Including the data from @AquaBiomics

 

[jda]

I have been able to keep mini starfish, all types of pods, worms, different colored sponges, fun colored coralline and calcium depositing worms in my tanks for a few decades. What people are looking for from a AB sample/test is just a SMALL part of it, IMO. You cannot get most of these things from bottles, fish gut bacteria or on frag plugs. I don't understand why people focus on JUST bacteria so much - they are important, but they also are the easiest thing to get right since they do their thing better than anything else.

Sure, if you let your tank go, some of these things can die off, but I never let my waste products get too high and I change water to remove and introduce.

 

[Alexraptor]

True, but a lot of the arguments being made are negated by the fact that tanks with no sand bed also do fine. In other words we are debating where to get live sand - when live sand alone is probably not that important to a successful reef tank

Your quote: "Real live rock from the ocean is a vector to introduce a large variety of bacteria, worms, crustaceans and other microorganisms that make up a healthy reef, and even serves as temporary homes for many sand dwelling organisms (or organisms with a sand-dwelling stage in their life cycle)."

My point was real live rock from the ocean may have what you said, but much of this can be rapidly reduced in the aquarium setting. Much like @BeanAnimal suggested, dry rock rapidly becomes live rock, and tanks lose biodiversity over time - as compared to maintaining it. So, while there may be some benefit to adding 'live sand from the ocean' within weeks/months that benefit according to several scientific articles is lost. Including the data from @AquaBiomics

That is not the topic of discussion here. This thread is about what we as aquarists do, or don't do, to maintain our sandbeds. And at no point have I said, or implied, that Live Rock, or Live Sand for that matter, is needed for a successful reef tank.

Simply put and as per my original post, I personally prefer, and am a proponent of, a hands-off approach, allowing detritus to remain and be processed and fully broken down naturally, by way of bioturbation. However this method of "maintaining a sand bed" is only viable if you are able to introduce the organisms required to support the process.

Systems started entirely with Dry rock, and by extension dry sand, cannot do this, nor will these organisms magically appear without an introduction vector (i.e "dry rock becomes live rock over time"), and that is the ONLY thing being discussed here, not the viability of Live Rock vs Dry Rock reef tanks.

 

[MnFish1]

That is not the topic of discussion here. This thread is about what we as aquarists do, or don't do, to maintain our sandbeds. And at no point have I said, or implied, that Live Rock, or Live Sand for that matter, is needed for a successful reef tank.

Simply put and as per my original post, I personally prefer, and am a proponent of, a hands-off approach, allowing detritus to remain and be processed and fully broken down naturally, by way of bioturbation. However this method of "maintaining a sand bed" is only viable if you are able to introduce the organisms required to support the process.

Systems started entirely with Dry rock, and by extension dry sand, cannot do this, nor will these organisms magically appear without an introduction vector (i.e "dry rock becomes live rock over time"), and that is the ONLY thing being discussed here, not the viability of Live Rock vs Dry Rock reef tanks.

Thank you - you have thoroughly educated me. Except I totally disagree with you - and you have given no reason to disagree with this

 

[MnFish1]

Every time a fish / coral/ cuc/ is added more diversity is added - what you seem not to realize as others have said - diversity decreases over time

 

[shakacuz]

i do nothing. my cerith snails and sand dollar urchin tend to very minimally stir it.

 

[MnFish1]

I think the was @jda thinks about it is correct - what he does works for him - the people that have no sand - or minimal - it works for them - so one can't count on either method for success (without knowing the other export modalities have)

 

[BriansBrain]

Vacuum it all out and go bare bottom

 

[MnFish1]

Vacuum it all out and go bare bottom

Actually - I kind of did this - I had like 1/8 to 1/4 max of sand in my tank. Many people like deeper sand - I thought it looked bad. This avoids the issues with blowing the sand all over - like a fluidized bed. Its all based on personal preference

 

[Alexraptor]

Every time a fish / coral/ cuc/ is added more diversity is added - what you seem not to realize as others have said - diversity decreases over time

Again with completely missing the point, at this point I can't help but wonder you're just trolling...

What you and "others" do not seem to realize is that that there are a significant number organisms that will not and can not appear in a system over time, simply by adding fish/corals/cuc, and can only realistically be introduced with live rock/sand.

I suppose the exception would be if you added a coral encrusted over, or anchored to, a rock, but then you're not really just adding a coral to the tank.

At the end of the day, there are over 100 species of sipuncula(peanut worms) 10 000 species of polycheates, many of which readily thrive in reef tanks, and are absolutely essential bioturbators.

- Fin -

 

[jda]

I totally get that most people do not have the skill or desire to keep their tanks in a way that all fauna lives for long periods of time. However, this is not the fault of the fauna... but the reefer. For the folks that have this desire, then need stuff from the ocean.

I really wish that people would not say that biodiversity goes down just by looking at some Aqua Biomics tests. Even if you lose some strains of bacteria, if you pick up extra types of starfish, worms and even the bacteria that AquaBiomics does not have a DNA profile for, then you could still be ahead.

Just curious, but do you test in the cryptic areas, behind the rock, etc. when you send in a AB test? The video that I saw just used tank water which is hardly any sort of comprehensive account of what is in a tank.

If anybody thinks that diversity is down in their tank, visit IPSF.com.

 

[MnFish1]

I totally get that most people do not have the skill or desire to keep their tanks in a way that all fauna lives for long periods of time. However, this is not the fault of the fauna... but the reefer. For the folks that have this desire, then need stuff from the ocean.

I really wish that people would not say that biodiversity goes down just by looking at some Aqua Biomics tests. Even if you lose some strains of bacteria, if you pick up extra types of starfish, worms and even the bacteria that AquaBiomics does not have a DNA profile for, then you could still be ahead.

Just curious, but do you test in the cryptic areas, behind the rock, etc. when you send in a AB test? The video that I saw just used tank water which is hardly any sort of comprehensive account of what is in a tank.

If anybody thinks that diversity is down in their tank, visit IPSF.com.

Well perhaps you have not looked at the scientific literature. I mean it's clear. You have your opinions - and those are sacrosanct. In fact - Biodiversity in tanks decreases over time - If you want to prove that incorrect go ahead

 

[MnFish1]

Again with completely missing the point, at this point I can't help but wonder you're just trolling...

What you and "others" do not seem to realize is that that there are a significant number organisms that will not and can not appear in a system over time, simply by adding fish/corals/cuc, and can only realistically be introduced with live rock/sand.

I suppose the exception would be if you added a coral encrusted over, or anchored to, a rock, but then you're not really just adding a coral to the tank.

At the end of the day, there are over 100 species of sipuncula(peanut worms) 10 000 species of polycheates, many of which readily thrive in reef tanks, and are absolutely essential bioturbators.

- Fin -

correct. Which was my point. Those trying to mimic a reef - may very well be trying to fool themselves

 

[jda]

I have experience, not opinions. They are hugely different.

What in the history of me posting online to help people reef leads you to believe that I am not well read and studied in addition to being well practiced? There are no facts that biodiversity decreases over time, just a few people who showed something under a small set of conditions. I will also admit when I am wrong.

I could easily commission some literature that shows that it increases by leaps and bounds with other conditions. That is as much of a fact as any other literature. Neither are actual facts.

Why is all of this so hard for you? I know that you like to be a contrarian and often lack the self awareness to see what is going on, but in what world do people quote literature over well-studied people with experience? It is not some noobie, thumb-sucker feeling, belief or interpretation (opinion) that a well-cared for tank can keep diverse critters over time when well cared for - I have done it with direct involvement (experience). This seems like somebody needs Robin Williams to give the speech to Matt Damon about how they don't know anything just from the literature.