what is all of this dsb crash talk i read?

[MiddletonMark]

Dave - To be honest ... how long do most people wait to declare success [or more successful than last method]?

Not long, if you judge by the Zeovit threads ... or just about every other method. [it would be a 15 page single post if we listed all that had remarkable early success ....] I think it's just the way we as humans work - not that it's accurate, but the way it is.

I know we agree that things are a bit too trend-driven ... and I'm betting that's part of your concern here. And mighty valid one too. Thus I really like where I see Randy going with his `list of problems' - to define the `scary issues' and move understanding along - not regurgitated internet `information'. Thus I see this thread trying to work into things, define things better ... and work past the different `camps' that so often happen. I might like camping, but hate when I do it online [sorry, all my anthropology grad classes can't help but note the odd internet-behavior exhibited by reefkeepers ... where some amazing colored picture can sell out a product before it's available (phosban reactor)].

[DonJasper]

Context: Edukating Randy in "This is Marine Ecology 100 minus stuff, which you never took a course in. LOL"
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by DonJasper
Then I'm hoping that you should find some stuff without too much trouble.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Bomber
I did for the past year. Do a search on RC for Bomber and a search on TRT for Spanky. I'm not doing it again.

Apparently you didn't CC Randy - or he's too stupid to learned the stuff! I wus hopin that Randy could learn enough so that he could follow the hand waving and so doesn't need a flow chart box saying "And then a miracle happens" to complete the described process.

Me? I could never wear the Wizard Hats that you guys do! Thank goodness for Merriam Webster.

Anyway - you've made your decision. I respect that.

[gregt]

Originally posted by Randy Holmes-Farley

Are you familiar with the Redfield Ratio?

According to Ron's analysis:

http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2002-12/rs/feature/

skimmate is heavy in N relative to P.

It has 420 ppm N and 37 ppm P, or 25:1 moles n to moles P.

skimmer sludge has 4500 ppm N and 250 ppm P, for a mole ratio of 40:1

The Redfield ratio is perhaps debateable a bit, but is more like 16:1 by moles AFAIK.

Does it worry you that you are removing a nonRedfield ratio by skimming?

Why not?

Personally, I'm not convinced Ron knows the proper way to skim to remove P. A wet skimmate is necessary. Not a dry sludge. He has made it very clear to me that he thinks I am full of skimmate in this matter. If, it is in fact his assumption that is wrong then his experiment would be fundamentally flawed as it does not test the proper type of skimmate that is collected by the main BB advocators.

[gregt]

Improperly sizing and tuning the skimmer is a large part of the reason people had trouble with BB in the first place. We need to be sure people understand that BB will not work well if you do it halfway. You must have a skimmer that can quickly export the nutrients, and it must be tuned correctly.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Personally, I'm not convinced Ron knows the proper way to skim to remove P. A wet skimmate is necessary.

That could be, but I'm curious why you believe that a wet skimmate will have more P relative to N in it?

[thackray]

I was hoping that someone might shed some light on my earlier question from page 10.

Similar processes occur in LR and DSB but somehow the live rock solves an equilibrium condition over a long period of time (bad stuff—in, ok stuff--out) that a DSB does/may not. What prevents the build up of P in the LR that occurs in the DSB?

FWIW we run shallow sand beds with lots of sand critters. We assume that our live rock is doing most of the “filtering�. The corals are primarily SPS and LPS.

Phil Thackray

[shred5]

Originally posted by MiddletonMark
Dave - To be honest ... how long do most people wait to declare success [or more successful than last method]?

Not long, if you judge by the Zeovit threads ... or just about every other method. [it would be a 15 page single post if we listed all that had remarkable early success ....] I think it's just the way we as humans work - not that it's accurate, but the way it is.

I know we agree that things are a bit too trend-driven ... and I'm betting that's part of your concern here. And mighty valid one too. Thus I really like where I see Randy going with his `list of problems' - to define the `scary issues' and move understanding along - not regurgitated internet `information'. Thus I see this thread trying to work into things, define things better ... and work past the different `camps' that so often happen. I might like camping, but hate when I do it online [sorry, all my anthropology grad classes can't help but note the odd internet-behavior exhibited by reefkeepers ... where some amazing colored picture can sell out a product before it's available (phosban reactor)].

Exactly... I hate it .. like with Goniopora.. I hate when people say I have kept one alive for 1 year so I am successful and then a ton of newbies say, see he can keep one…Well they usually live about a year before they seem to decline in capitivty… A coral probably can take a year or two to totally starve to death if they are getting partial nutrition..

Fact is a lot of people think a new system is better because now that they are trying some thing new, it renews their interest in their tank. So they do more water changes siphon more detritus etc.. Just like all these new salt threads.. Well of coarse it seems better because you are actually changing some water…then you have the other side of the coin. You get someone who does too big of water change with a new salt or has not adjusted for temp etc. and their corals rtn.. they blame the salt…some one else did they same thing etc…

Dave

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Similar processes occur in LR and DSB but somehow the live rock solves an equilibrium condition over a long period of time (bad stuff—in, ok stuff--out) that a DSB does/may not. What prevents the build up of P in the LR that occurs in the DSB?

FWIW we run shallow sand beds with lots of sand critters. We assume that our live rock is doing most of the “filtering�. The corals are primarily SPS and LPS.

I would not assume that it is different, except in magnitude.

[MiddletonMark]

Well, given bacterial action, LR will `shed' detritus or at least move it around.

Having taken some `old rock' and put it in a dark tank with circulation and a heater ... I can attest that the rock will shed a suprising amount of crud, when given no inputs other than heat and water movement. Heck, when removing the last of my shallow-bed substrate I thought I `got it all' ... only to have a few months of weekly siphoning the little piles that showed up.

As I wasn't moving the rocks around, and wasn't dumping in sand
+ cc ... I'm guessing it was worked out of the rocks by either bugs or bacteria. Either way, it just kept on appearing here and there ... still is to a minor extent.

The sandbed/substrate problem is that the bed can't shed anywhere ... as it's on the glass. Nowhere for gravity to help the detritus go - where the rock is elevated and gravity takes it away.

Or so it seems to work for me, though with all these smart people here - someone will poke a hole in it

[Bomber]

Originally posted by Randy Holmes-Farley
So you are claiming that if you took your existing system and put on an algal filter, that things would get appreciably worse?

Nope, I can't grow algae. Unless I put some rocks in the sump, wait until they catch detritus, then light them. But why would I want to do that? I just take detritus out and not worry about it.

The nitrogen, phosphorus, metals, and other things that get into the macroalgae would otherwise go where in your system?

Where they go in the first place. Bacteria, which I remove as bacterial flock. The second in line is phyto, which I also wet skim out. In the morning the skimmate is brown - ish, after the lights have been on for a while it's green-ish if there's anything it needs to take out.

[shred5]

Originally posted by thackray
I was hoping that someone might shed some light on my earlier question from page 10.

Similar processes occur in LR and DSB but somehow the live rock solves an equilibrium condition over a long period of time (bad stuff—in, ok stuff--out) that a DSB does/may not. What prevents the build up of P in the LR that occurs in the DSB?

FWIW we run shallow sand beds with lots of sand critters. We assume that our live rock is doing most of the “filtering�. The corals are primarily SPS and LPS.

Phil Thackray

it happens in rock to.. just not as bad.. My guess is less surface area.. I have seen were algae continually will grow on your rock even with the best conditions...

Dave

[thackray]

So maybe LR is a vertical DSB??

Phil

[Bomber]

Originally posted by Randy Holmes-Farley
The positive aspect of macroalgae growth is that it removes both inorganic nitrogen and phosphorus. Skimmers don't remove either.

Of course they do, don't be silly. bacterial flock, phyto, etc etc

Combined with a skimmer, you get a nice system that removes both inorganic and many organic forms of nitrogen and phosphorus.

Leave it off, and you don't add all those other things either.

[Bomber]

Originally posted by Randy Holmes-Farley
[B]Does it worry you that you are removing a nonRedfield ratio by skimming?

Why not?

Dunno, was Ron testing a tank that the sink was full? or one that was still sinking P?
Sounds like he was testing tanks that have not gone eutrophic yet because that's about the same numbers we get under those conditions.
Looks like he was collecting phyto and didn't know it too.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Leave it off, and you don't add all those other things either.

You don't add any inorganic or organic forms of P and N to your aquarium?

[Bomber]

Originally posted by gregt
Personally, I'm not convinced Ron knows the proper way to skim to remove P. A wet skimmate is necessary. Not a dry sludge. He has made it very clear to me that he thinks I am full of skimmate in this matter. If, it is in fact his assumption that is wrong then his experiment would be fundamentally flawed as it does not test the proper type of skimmate that is collected by the main BB advocators.

Greg, I believe Ron would not want to use wet skimmate because he wouldn't want to remove any bugs, phyto, etc. So he would not want to take advantage of that.
He would want to wait until it's as dry as possible and miss all those things.

[Habib]

Originally posted by gregt
Improperly sizing and tuning the skimmer is a large part of the reason people had trouble with BB in the first place. We need to be sure people understand that BB will not work well if you do it halfway. You must have a skimmer that can quickly export the nutrients, and it must be tuned correctly.

In other words the right size and quality is important for a BB.

That is logical isn't it if there is no sink for the junk.

If there is a sandbed (irrespective of height) quite a lot of that junk would get trapped in there.

[Bomber]

Originally posted by Randy Holmes-Farley
Leave it off, and you don't add all those other things either.

You don't add any inorganic or organic forms of P and N to your aquarium?

(Whew! If I missed anything just point it out. I'm trying to keep up, so I'm just talking to you. LOL )

Sure I do. I just remove them - wet skimming.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

You remove inorganic P and N by skimming?

[Bomber]

Originally posted by Habib
In other words the right size and quality is important for a BB.

That is logical isn't it if there is no sink for the junk.

If there is a sandbed (irrespective of height) quite a lot of that junk would get trapped in there.

Exactly Hab! (I do read your posts, It's just I agree so I don't always say anything )

[Bomber]

Originally posted by Randy Holmes-Farley
You remove inorganic P and N by skimming?

It doesn't just sit there and not change or anything you know.

Have you ever cranked up a skimmer to where it's running a little over the top? Then stirred up your tank and watch it take it out?

[shred5]

Originally posted by Bomber
Greg, I believe Ron would not want to use wet skimmate because he wouldn't want to remove any bugs, phyto, etc. So he would not want to take advantage of that.
He would want to wait until it's as dry as possible and miss all those things.

Actually Ron says very little of the bugs and stuff get removed by the skimmer...

Dave

[Bomber]

Originally posted by shred5
Actually Ron says very little of the bugs and stuff get removed by the skimmer...

Dave

AND Ron says DRY skimming. LOL

[MiddletonMark]

Originally posted by thackray
So maybe LR is a vertical DSB??

Not a bad way to put it IMO. But something that can be removed without disturbing the whole tank's balance

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Ammonium and water soluble P are highly desirable. We just keep plenty of habitat for the things that like it by removing them in their incorporated states. We don't wait on them to break back down again.
--------------
then later
-------------
It doesn't just sit there and not change or anything you know.


Ah, so you sit there and wait for it to be broken down to organic forms before removal?

In fact, removal by bacteria that are skimmed, and removal by macroalgae that are harvested are not all that different, are they