Tank bioload interesting concept

[kelley_mc]

I know this is a somewhat common question, but I am looking for a little more detail if possible. We have all heard of ratios of inches of fish per gallon, for example 1 inch per 5 gallons of water. Obviously there are many factors that affect this, I won’t get into those. My question relates more to the cleanup crew. To keep things simple, let’s assume we have 2 tanks. Both are 10 gallons, 20 lbs live sand, 13 lbs live rock, with a 2-inch fish. One tank has a cleanup crew of say 1 snail per gallon (10 snails) and 1 crab per 2 gallons (5 crabs) and 1 cleaner shrimp. The other tank does not have a cleanup crew. In my mind, it seems that the tank with the cleanup crew would have a greater bioload. However, if the cleanup crew is doing its job, does the tank with the cleanup crew actually have a reduced bioload? Besides possible starvation of a cleanup crew, is it possible to have too much of a cleanup crew? Corals are also living, what is their impact on the bioload? Finally, what about critters like Urchins, would they be included with the cleanup crew when it comes to bioload rules of thumb or would they be part of the inches of fish per gallon rules of thumb?

All responses are greatly appreciated!

Kelley

[rcoulter]

IMHO - urchins are not a good thing FWIW. I had several as hitchikers and found out that they eat coraline algee. Really put a dent on one of my rocks in just a few weeks. Get em out.

[Yellotang]

All living organisms in the tank is part of the bioload. Just because a creature eats algae, does not make it a negetive (Bioload) impact on the system.

[SAT]

This actually isn't a common question at all and the answer isn't obvious. Let me give you my take on it, which shouldn't be considered highly authoritative. For a better answer, I suggest asking Dr. Ron.

All animals contribute to the bio load. Basically they turn food into pollution. If they eat algae, they are turning the algae into pollution. However, algal consumption counts less because growing algae removes nutrients from the water (the better answer from a pollution management standpoint is to remove the algae, not let it be eaten).

Whether a crab eats excess food or heterotrophic bacteria consume the food doesn't make much difference in the end because the ultimate product (ammonia, for instance) is the same.

The major exception is any material used for growth can be removed from the equation. Figure about 10% can be discounted from a growing animal. If the food passes through several mouths before the bacteria get it, a higher percentage may be removed. That only works, of course, when the population is expanding.

This assumes you have a fairly constant amount of excess food so that a stable population of animals & bacteria will consume it. The typical food-related problem comes from an unusual excess. That's when you get a sudden bacterial or algal bloom.

The bottom line is the bio load is best measured by the amount of food you add to the tank. That's not necessarily any easier to apply than the "inches per gallon" rule because foods vary so much in nutrition content.

[kelley_mc]

Stuart, I understand what you are saying, the biggest factor is amount of food in the system. My original question leaves out an important thought that I did not state. Food that I add to the tank that is not eaten by the fish will fall to the bottom of the tank and "rot". With a cleanup crew, they will hunt down and eat most of this food. Under the theory you stated, is the effect of the cleanup crew nonexistent because the same amount of ammonia will be produced whether the food is eaten by a crab or just left to rot in the tank?

Thanks again!

[dickeybrazil]

I was just about to search for bioload of corals, but the search function has been disabled. Does anyone know what a rule of thumb for corals is?

[dickeybrazil]

tagging

[Yellotang]

Originally posted by kelley_mc
Under the theory you stated, is the effect of the cleanup crew nonexistent because the same amount of ammonia will be produced whether the food is eaten by a crab or just left to rot in the tank?


What goes in, must come out. Organisms that eat and process the nutrients help keep the nutrients in the system.
The more clean up organisms you have, the larger the bioload you have.

In the rough sense, the bioload almost can be related to light bulbs in your house, the more light bulbs you have, the larger load on the electricity you will have.

You can't light all the bulbs if you do not provide enough electricity. you cut the amount back, the lights will dim down and even out. The more you provide, the more the lights light up.

the more lights you have, the brighter your house gets, the more you waste energy, the more excess heat is produced, causing over heating issues (energy waste and over heating is comparable to waste).

Then you must ask, how many light bulbs is too many.

Simple, kind of crazy explanation. Hope I make sense.

[SAT]

Originally posted by kelley_mc
Under the theory you stated, is the effect of the cleanup crew nonexistent because the same amount of ammonia will be produced whether the food is eaten by a crab or just left to rot in the tank?
I think it's nearly the same. However, that goes against conventional wisdom and there may be a factor I havn't considered.

Note that cleanup crews do more than just eat excess food. They also keep down excess algal growth, which I think is the primary benefit.

Back in my old pre-reef UGF days, I never had any snails or hermits. Excess food just fell to the bottom of the tank and fed either the pods or the bacteria. I never thought twice about it -- but I also wasn't in the habit of overfeeding my fish.

[kelley_mc]

I understand what both Stuart and Yellotang are saying. It makes complete sense. (FYI: I am also not in the habit of overfeeding any of my tanks). The reason I am asking this is that with everything I have read, I've never seen anything that talked about the cleanup crew as an increase in the bioload of the tank. Just how necessary they are. It just always seemed funny to me that 1 inch of fish per 5 gallons of water is the general fish rule of thumb, but I can have 1 snail per gallon and 1 crab per 2 gallons. Add up the mass of all those snails and crabs and it dwarfs the 1 inch fish! (5 snails and 2.5 crabs)

As careful as we all try to be when it comes to feeding our fish, we all know that some food gets away. I guess I would rather have something eat it that I can see rather than something that I can not see. I makes the tank much more interesting! Besides, they eat any algae that may be growing.

Thanks for all the responses.

Oh, and Yellotang, how many light bulbs are too many?? :)

[mandktod]

Then there is the article written by Dr. Ron, which I found on the website for Dt's, it says that we should over feed our tanks and that most of the time we starve our tanks and that is actually worse than over feeding, he explains it that as long as the extra food makes it's way to the bottom it will never go to waste that is will be eaten by something and that under feeding keeps that from happening and therefore causes more probelms in the long run. Here is the article read it for yourself and see if it doesn't make you stop and think about feeding, I did.
http://www.dtplankton.com/frameset1.htm

[mandktod]

Sorry that didn't take you where I thought it would, click on articles and then Sandbed, that is what I found. And I consider him to be pretty knowledgeable.

[SAT]

Ron's argument is that a deep sand bed doesn't function properly if you don't have an active community of critters living in it. And that you don't get an active community if you don't feed it.

Given that a well functioning DSB greatly increases the capacity of the system, you might think of the need to feed as a "tax" on that.

[MiddletonMark]

Well, a booming DSB would also be more bioload ... all those bugs, worms, critters [nevermind a HUGE bacterial load] ... all more bioload.

Thus why some like the elimination of the DSB, as it drops the overall bioload in the tank ... also with other BB methods is focused on rapid nutrient/waste removal ... thus in a sense slightly less bioload from bacteria/etc. Still same cleanup crew, generally.

[Yellotang]

Originally posted by kelley_mc
Oh, and Yellotang, how many light bulbs are too many?? :) :D :D :D :D
I think I have at least 1 too many:D :D :D :D

My electric bill last month was $484.00 Talk about ouch. The added on almost a hundred dollar penelty to my already high bill.

[kelley_mc]

Ouch Yellowtang!

I just printed the article by Dr Ron and I look forward to reading it. I am sure I will be posting another queston or two when I finish it.

Isn't it amazing that something that would seem so simple on the surface as feeding fish could translate into so much thought! You gotta love the complexity of these systems!

[mandktod]

I found it very interesting "food for thought" pardon the pun. LOL

[kelley_mc]

lol

[kelley_mc]

Here is a post I received from the same question on a Usenet Group:

Bioload is the sum of all process's both chemically and physically in which living organisms place a demand upon a closed or semi-closed enviroment that is required to keep them alive. Since the demands placed upon each system varies with the types of organisms, the size of the organisms in relation to their enviroment as well as the number of organisms and the population ratio's between the other organisms that also share the enviroment, there really isn't any one answer to your question. You can have 100 small snails in a 10 gallon tank if certain parameters are maintained. However, you couldn't have 100 large snails kept in a 10 gallon tank under the same parameters that worked for the 100 small snails. Yet, this is the same the other way around. You can have 100 large snails in 10 gallon tank if certain parameters are maintained. However, you also couldn't keep 100 small snails in a 10 gallon tank under the same parameters as the 100 large snails. Something would have to change. Not enough snail to go around and you might end up with too much algae. A balance is going to be attempted. If the
balance falls outside what the enviroment/system can buffer, then the enviroment crashes and a new enviroment maybe able to be established. ect ect ect.

[kelley_mc]

Very interesting article...

The more critters we have, the more food they need to eat. By feeding more, we basically get more critters and bacteria. Basically summed up in the post above, its all a balance. But, by feeding more, and getting more, we obviously have an increased bioload, whether very small critters or bigger ones.

By reading the article, I learned that my particle size in my sand bed is too big... I guess sometime I will have to decide if I want to change it. That doesn't sound fun.

Thank again all!

[mandktod]

I think mostly it is what works in your system, if you ask 100 people on here what they do you will get close to 100 different answers, so i have just been reading everything I can and when i see something here that has to do with a problem I am having or have had I weed out the ones that sound wacky and study the others to see if it is something I might be interested in trying.

As far as I can tell it is all trial and error in your system and hopefully the error doesn't end up costing you, but it is very interesting at the very least and at this point I am just looking forward to the day my tank is mature which should be just around the corner since it has made it to the 5 month mark and I have new stuff appearing almost daily, it is kind of like a treasure hunt each night to see what has grown out of the rocks today or on the glass etc...

[kelley_mc]

I look forward to that day myself. My tank is just under 2 months old and so far so good. I feel that so far I have a nice balance, but I don't want to push it and throw that balance out of whack. My next goal is to try and squeeze a Royal Gramma in over the next couple months and then let the tank do what it wants from now on.

[MiddletonMark]

Just as a note:

There are wise, experienced reefers who would disagree with the linked article above. A lot of times I feel like there are experts held up as `knowing all the answers' when no one does.

Not to take a swing at any expert ... but he is just putting forth one method that may or may not work for you. It likely has benefits - but for sure will have catches.

I used to think this was a good way to run things, and have become less of a `feeder' as I'm not convinced on some of the `truths' that are often claimed.

Just my 2 cents - but don't go changing what is working for you off one article - IMO that's a recipe for disaster. It's the cause to read and research and think more ... but never to change your practices off one paper/article/etc. No one has all the answers - and the more they act/speak like they do the more I distrust them.

[nancysnuwave]

Originally posted by kelley_mc
FYI: I am also not in the habit of overfeeding any of my tanks). The reason I am asking this is that with everything I have read, I've never seen anything that talked about the cleanup crew as an increase in the bioload of the tank.

I'm thinking there are at least 2 aspects to the Bioload concept in keeping a tank:

1 - how much food do you have to add to feed everyone
2 - how effective is the system at processing/handling that routine 'load' of nitrate and phosphate sources?

I think the second part - 'ecological balance' can be built up over time - bacteria colonize live rock or what have you, also, your cleanup crew might get 'in the grove'.

The trick comes in the idea of system 'fault tolerance'. More gallons, more dilution and time for 'ramp up' of cleansing processes before things like nitrites and ammonium get toxic.

Also, in keeping w the fault tolerance idea, if any process gets whacked - like some virus clobbering your bacteria, you have a lot less time for recolonization/adaptation if you have to handle lots of incoming nutrients relative to the "tank" size (gallons/bacterial 'surface area' on live rock, etc).

Just my .02

[SPC]

Great post, I feel that this subject is too often over looked. I wonder if we should use amount of detritus produced as a bench mark for our systems:) .

Mandktod, please keep in mind when reading one of Dr Ron's "feed heavy" articles, that he has not had a reef tank make it past four years yet without it crashing. You may also want to take a look at this thread that deals with DSB's and what actually occurs with them in nature:http://archive.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=263482

On the subject of bioload, IMO we need to take into account each animal that lives in our system as adding to the bioload (this includes bacteria). I think that the old inches of fish/gallon only took into account what the system would support in reference to nitrogen. What we as reef keepers should be most interested in is how to deal with phosphate, and its accumulation over time in our systems.

Each day on this board I read something like this:

Newbee "I have hair algae growing on my rocks and sand."

Answer "you need to get more herbivores for your system."

This make no sense to me. The reason the hair algae is growing is because there are nutrients feeding it. Adding more nutrient producing animals to solve an excess nutrient situation....well. If we take into account the 10% rule, an animal will only assimilate 10% of what they eat, the other 90% is excreted as waste, then I think we can get a better idea of what must occur for that snail poop to become harmless in our systems. Now, given enough time this snail poop "could" be broken down far enough to be of little worry, but that time period is not near fast enough to keep algae and cyano from getting their fill.

So, I don't really think there is a concrete answer to the bioload question outside of what each persons system will support. What I do think however, is that feeding heavy to support more waste producing animals in a reef tank is a backward step.I also feel that once a system has reached a point where high nutrients are the problem, that adding more nutrient producing animals is the opposite way they should go.
Steve

[kelley_mc]

I agree and I don't think that I am going to change my feeding habits. The article was interesting however, and did make some valid points. With a tank as small as I have, the lower amount of bioload, the better.

[mandktod]

As I said in one of my last post, it is what works in your system, I personally am not following that article as of now since I am figting algae and trying to keep nutrients down but it was a very interesting take and I do think he has some good thoughts on a lot of things and he certainly knows way more than me, and as soon as this algae things goes away I will look into the feeding thing a little closer but for now it is a nutrient export thing I am into.

[ab5ebdxer]

Lot of good comments but this is really a simple concept with regards to bioload. What ever organic matter you put in the tank (i.e. food) will be your bioload, or shall we say determines your bioload. If you do not feed enough, animals will die and the bioload will adjust to the amount of food that is supplied. If you feed too much then animals mutiply, increasing bioload.


You can only support as much life in your tank as there is energy to go around. It is when the balance is broken that problems arise.

[kelley_mc]

I guess I never knew how little the "crew" did in the whole scheme of things. But, aside of the work they do to keep algae growth, I think that add alot of personality to the tank. I like watching the Skunk Cleaner Shrimp running around, or watching the Emerald Crab pick at a speck of food and put it into his mouth, or seeing the bright red color of the Scarlet Hermit Crab. I like them all!

[nancysnuwave]

Originally posted by kelley_mc
Ouch Yellowtang!

I just printed the article by Dr Ron and I look forward to reading it.

Might think about skimming this as welll.. bottom line, it says DSB doesn't do what is advertised, and does do some un-advertised things.. sources seem VERY well documented.
Deep Sand Bed research (http://archive.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=263482)

Just FYI.. I just went to barebottom system, but wimped out and put some sand in my refugium (where it should be easily removed)..

:cool:

[SPC]

Originally posted by ab5ebdxer
It is when the balance is broken that problems arise.

And when a tank reaches a certain level of mouths to satisfy, the more chance there is for this "broken balance" to have serious consequences.

Much of the life in our tanks is in constant flux no matter what we do to try and keep a balance. This can be seen in bacterial populations rising and falling to meet changes. In DSB and L/R critters reaching maximum numbers, and then dying back (see Dr Ron and Rob Toonens recommendation's to perform critter counts and to re-seed the sand bed), and in a loss of habitat (DSB, and L/R to a lesser degree) if they are allowed to become "clogged". When these changes take place on a small scale, our systems seem to be able to handle them fairly well, but when we see them on a large scale (power failure), then we find out just how thin a line we were walking with this balance.


Originally posted by kelley_mc
I guess I never knew how little the "crew" did in the whole scheme of things. But, aside of the work they do to keep algae growth, I think that add alot of personality to the tank. I like watching the Skunk Cleaner Shrimp running around, or watching the Emerald Crab pick at a speck of food and put it into his mouth, or seeing the bright red color of the Scarlet Hermit Crab. I like them all!

I think we all like this aspect, kelley, its one of the main reasons I would never go back to freshwater.:)
Steve

[kelley_mc]

Skimmed the DSB thread, and wow a lot of information. It doesn't surprise me though. Everywhere we look we get different info!