what is all of this dsb crash talk i read?

[Bomber]

Well then that's simple enough.

Since these closed systems are supposedly modeled after "nature" and they work just like "nature".

If they were such perfect models, then nothing in nature would ever go eutrophic.

Keep in mind, it's always the hobbyists fault "user error" when they go bad, and it's "user error" when bays, lagoons, etc go eutrophic. Even nature can't handle it.
The big misconception is that eutrophism is always man made. Eutrophism has been going on since the beginning of time, way before man.

That's the point, and it's very simple to understand. It is just like nature.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

or even the I don't have time part.


Sorry, but I think that if I ask what the evidence that they cause crashes is, and you point me to a thread with more than 900 posts, the first hundred of which do not even address the question, that is just not being very helpful.

There's no reason that you should provide any evidence, but then you should also not expect that your opinion that they are the cause of crashes would be viewed as anything more than an opinion.

[Bomber]

You don't know how to test for total phosphorous compounds?

Hab has a easy description of it, maybe he'll see this and post.

You just need a little heat, some acid, and patience.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Well then that's simple enough.

Since these closed systems are supposedly modeled after "nature" and they work just like "nature".

If they were such perfect models, then nothing in nature would ever go eutrophic.

So you are equating elevated nutrients to a crash?

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

You don't know how to test for total phosphorous compounds?

Hab has a easy description of it, maybe he'll see this and post.

You just need a little heat, some acid, and patience.

What would you test? In what sort of aquarium? One heavily skimmed, like yours, or one that isn't? Any macroalgae competing with the sand for nutrients?

What would you compare it to? What levels of phosphorus and nitrogen in sand are detrimental? What forms are detrimental and what forms are not? How do you know that any are detrimental?

[Bomber]

the first hundred of which do not even address the question, that is just not being very helpful.

You couldn't make it to page two? try reading it again.

There's no reason that you should provide any evidence, but then you should also not expect that your opinion that they are the cause of crashes would be viewed as anything more than an opinion

Then when someone has provided the evidence and someone does not have the time to read it, that someone should not expect to have their opinion counted either.

Now stop saying that I/we have not provided any evidence just because you won't read it. You take the time every month to research articles and write for these mags. There's no hurry, take your time, we'll wait until it's convenient for you to read it.

In the mean time, stop trying to slant it so it sounds like "we've provided no evidence". We did and plenty of it.

It's the people that are pushing how great DSB's are that are providing no evidence.

[Bomber]

Originally posted by Randy Holmes-Farley
You don't know how to test for total phosphorous compounds?

Hab has a easy description of it, maybe he'll see this and post.

You just need a little heat, some acid, and patience.

What would you test? In what sort of aquarium? One heavily skimmed, like yours, or one that isn't? Any macroalgae competing with the sand for nutrients?

What would you compare it to? What levels of phosphorus and nitrogen in sand are detrimental? What forms are detrimental and what forms are not? How do you know that any are detrimental?

You're making this a lot more confusing and difficult than it really is.

[drtango]

On defining a "crash", most of the DSB "failures" I've encountered have related to SPS tanks--gradual, though sometimes abrupt, recession, slow necrosis and lack of growth of SPS corals, coupled with worsening algae problems.

DSB's are great in softie dominated tanks--softies were thriving in my tank as the SPS declined--and yes, I still have a mixed system where everybody seems happy barebottom, though the softies are now growing slower than the SPS.

John

[Bomber]

What would you compare it to? What levels of phosphorus and nitrogen in sand are detrimental? What forms are detrimental and what forms are not? How do you know that any are detrimental?

Randy, I think I found what the problem is.

You don't know about the cycling of phosphorous compounds in marine environments.

It doesn't matter what form it's in right now. It can be in another form in a few minutes.

[Habib]

I can easily change my opinion.

Randy:

I would consider a crash as something which changes the look of the tank completely and in an irreversible way within days or weeks.

A DSB becomes a piece of equipment for aquariums and for some it becomes something essential and for some it is far from any importance.

FWIW it is intended to be an important piece of equipment

If that piece of equipment starts to fail and is not noticed because one could not notice that easily and if that piece of equipment is of a very high importance for a certain tank what would one expect will happen?

Especially if (hypothetically speaking) that piece of equipment holds in a reversible manner a lot of nasty inorganic and organic compounds.

[hillrc91]

Bomber,

You chose to tangle with a Harvard trained chemist and not bring any data to the table to support your theory... Now don't get bitter because he's called you on it. You stated above that "It's the people that are pushing how great DSB's are that are providing no evidence." What more evidence do you need than actual aquarists who have actual functioning DSB's (in some cases for a decade or more) which haven't succomb to the DSB crash legend?

Oh, Yeah -- Drtango, I don't have anything against bare bottom tanks, or any other type of setup. What you choose to do is a matter of personal taste and preference. I just know what has worked for me. My DSB has dropped my Nitrate level another 4ppm when I tested last night from 28 to 24.4ppm.

[Bomber]

Originally posted by hillrc91
Bomber,

You chose to tangle with a Harvard trained chemist and not bring any data to the table to support your theory... Now don't get bitter because he's called you on it.

Richard, when you stop the name calling.

Randy and I are old friends, we are having a discussion, we will remain old friends.

Randy knows who he's tangling with too. You obviously do not.

I'm having the same attitude you would have or anyone else for that matter. If you had presented the "data" and no one would read it. BTW, it's not MY THEORY. I just prefer to tell the truth.

Originally posted by hillrc91
You stated above that "It's the people that are pushing how great DSB's are that are providing no evidence." What more evidence do you need than actual aquarists who have actual functioning DSB's (in some cases for a decade or more) which haven't succomb to the DSB crash legend?

and what more evidence do you need than all the professional aquarists that can't make these systems run long term? The Smithsonian, the Great Barrier Reef Aquarium, Bio 1 and 2, The Uneo Aquarium, Mote Marine Institute, The University of Miami, The University of Georgia Athens, etc etc.

Originally posted by hillrc91
What you choose to do is a matter of personal taste and preference.

That's been exactly my point since the very first post. If anyone doesn't believe it, just go to the task bar at the top of this very post, click "search", and read every post I've ever made since Henry, Mike, and Larry started this board.

[hillrc91]

Originally posted by DonJasper
All in one thread.

hillrc91:
I was hoping against hope that maybe you’d get some answers where I've failed. Which is interesting since the 'DSB crash due to phosphate build up' hypothesis should be so easily testable. But in a previous thread those Know More Than Me seemed to hint that the hypothesis is untestable. (maybe) !

I've come to use the term pseudoscience, rather than blind, panic-stricken, hand-ringing hysterical rage. Brings in that fatalistic Barnum and Bailey thing so I can observe the carnage from a distance.

DonJasper:

I think I've gotten all the answers that I need... Perhaps my DSB will crash someday ---But not today... My nitrates dropped another 4ppm when I tested yesterday.

[Habib]

Richard:

IMO Jerel (Bomber) has enough real world data to support most of what he is saying.

I think the meaning of "crash" and perhaps a few other things has to be defined. Besides that the data supporting most of what jerel is saying is IMO scattered too much over several quite lengthy threads.

[Bomber]

You guys sure do a lot of name calling and have yet to back up any of your pseudoscience with any data.

[Bomber]

Originally posted by Habib
Richard:

IMO Jerel (Bomber) has enough real world data to support most of what he is saying.

I think the meaning of "crash" and perhaps a few other things has to be defined. Besides that the data supporting most of what jerel is saying is IMO scattered too much over several quite lengthy threads.

That's true.

But if they are so hard set on proving me wrong and/or shutting me up, let them bring the data to the table to prove it.

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

You couldn't make it to page two? try reading it again.

I read page 2 and don't see any evidence of crashes in reef aquaria that are shown to be related to sand beds.

I think some of us may be getting a little too involved here. Let's all just take a cooling off period, and come back to this thread later today.

I would like to resume the discussion then, but let's try to get some agreement on what we are at least talking about:

1. What is a "crash"?

2. What types of aquaria are being discussed?

3. Do folks believe that an increase in nutrients (phosphorus, I presume) would necessarily lead to a crash?

4. If 2 is a yes, under what circumstances? When there is no other phosphorus export mechanism? Or even when there ae other mechanisms (like macroalgae, iron oxide media, etc.)

[Bomber]

Aquacultural Engineering
Volume 27, Issue 3 , March 2003, Pages 159-176

Water quality and nutrient budget in closed shrimp (Penaeus monodon)
Dhirendra Prasad Thakurm4.cor*m4.cor*, mailto:dpthakur@hotmail.commailto:dpthakur@hotmail.com, a, b and C. Kwei Lina

Nutrient budget revealed that shrimp could assimilate only 23–31% nitrogen and 10–13% phosphorus of the total inputs. The major source of nutrient input was feed, shrimp feed accounted for 76–92% nitrogen and 70–91% phosphorus of the total inputs. The major sinks of nutrients were in the sediment, which accounted for 14–53% nitrogen and 39–67% phosphorus of the total inputs.

This closed/model/aquarium.

I supposed reading this won't do a bit of good if you don't have the background to understand it and know what phosphorous compounds do to hard corals.

Remember, you and I still argue over Frank's work. You say it's chemical and I say show me the clean surfaces in marine environments. LOL

[hillrc91]

Bomber,

Name calling? I don't recall calling you a name directly.... But if I offended your delicate sensibilities, then you have my apology.

[Bomber]

You're still doing it. LOL

Tell you what, keep that thought "But if I offended your delicate sensibilities" and stop it. LOL

I'm sure if it was on the other foot, Randy would have stopped this already.

[drtango]

Richard-

I think it's important to note that nobody is disputing that DSB's "work" for a time, the length of time is in question. Mine worked fine for 3+ years, yours may work longer, depending on the animals you choose to keep.

My nitrates are unmeasurable with no DSB--lots of skimming, healthy live rock and thousands of gallons of water movement are enough in my heavily fed system--remove the organics before the bacterial cascade gets out of hand--why install a system to deal with something you don't need to keep in the first place?

[hillrc91]

Originally posted by Habib
Richard:

IMO Jerel (Bomber) has enough real world data to support most of what he is saying.

I think the meaning of "crash" and perhaps a few other things has to be defined. Besides that the data supporting most of what jerel is saying is IMO scattered too much over several quite lengthy threads.

Habib,

My primary concern is the well being of my fish. If the DSB crash theory is true, and presented in a coherent manner, I WILL take my DSB out without a second thought. I'd literally do it today if I felt that there was a "clear and present danger." What I'd really like is for someone to tell me WHY it works long term for so many, and seemingly fails for others. I'd like Dr. Ron, Bob Fenner, Anthony Calfo, Bob Goemans, and some of the other giants of marina aquaria to state why DSB's never seem to give them any trouble.

[MiddletonMark]

Originally posted by DonJasper
I've come to use the term pseudoscience, rather than blind, panic-stricken, hand-ringing hysterical rage. Brings in that fatalistic Barnum and Bailey thing so I can observe the carnage from a distance.

And that link has some interesting reading - making one wonder who is practicing pseudoscience IMO.

Pseudoscience, in contrast, is characteristically wanting adequate tests or the possibility of them, occasionally untestable in principle, and its supporters are frequently strident in insisting that existing scientific results are wrong. Pseudoscience is often unresponsive to ordinary scientific procedures (e.g., peer review, publication in standard journals). In some cases, no one applying scientific methods could disprove a pseudoscientific hypothesis (i.e. untestable claims) and failure to do so is often cited as evidence of the truth of the pseudoscience.

Yup, all that scientific data from nature, it's wrong. It happens differently in closed systems, I guess. We should forget that existing scientific data - it doesn't need to be proven irrelevant, we can just dismiss it out of hand

I guess we're supposed to prove that a DSB can crash a tank ... and failing to isolate the DSB as a single factor in the collapse of a system that is without a doubt, 100% at fault - then we're accused of being pseudoscience. Not the other way around, hmmm.

[gregt]

I'd like Dr. Ron, Bob Fenner, Anthony Calfo, Bob Goemans, and some of the other giants of marina aquaria to state why DSB's never seem to give them any trouble.

First off, this isn't true. Several of these names HAVE had many tanks crash, or at least have not kept one long term.

Secondly, what motivation would they have to do so?

And last, how can it be possible to "coherently" present the other side when we are immediately attacked so violently when it is even suggested that maybe there is a problem with the DSB method? None of us are saying DSB's aren't useful, or are "wrong". We just see the problems therein and see the benefits of not having one.

I for one am VERY tired of being called an idiot because I am willing to see the negative side to the method.

[gregt]

I guess we're supposed to prove that a DSB can crash a tank ... and failing to isolate the DSB as a single factor in the collapse of a system that is without a doubt, 100% at fault - then we're accused of being pseudoscience. Not the other way around, hmmm.

No, actually, if we proved the DSB can crash a tank then we are idiots that can't do something so simple as falling off a log.