should a DSB be sifted or no?

[Anonymous]

What do you think the critters in the DSB do, and do you have any evidence that they actually do that?

See here.

Any actual studies - not just Ron saying so?

Even Ron says that a DSB should be replaced every 5 years or so, and if the point of the sand is denirtification, I am not sure why anyone should be spending money on sand bed critters.

I am pretty sure Ron doesn't say that.

He does, but this is because of his heavy metal toxicity theories.

Furthermore, I know of no reefers who actually keep track of the sand bed infauna in any meaningful way. I guess, in short, I think adding/caring about sand bed infauna is akin to adding "essential elements" in a bottle to your tank - a waste of time, money and resources.

I do. My tank is "DSB" and not a reef tank. I care more about polychaetes than corals. :wink:

Fabu! Looks are liking the critters are the best reasons for keeping a sand bed.

If we don't know if it is is beneficial

That's right. However we do know that sand bed areas are a key component in C pathways on global scale. They provide living space for _bacteria_ and every other creature that utilizes it.

But it is the organic 'fixing' of p in the bacteria that seems to be problematic.
I also think talking about the global scale is not analogous to our tanks.

I add rock for its de-nitrification capabilities and its looks.

This is actually funny. It has been documented that sand beds are important in transfering energy (this is what "worms" do. They take energy out of detritus so there is less for the bacteria to convert and algae to incorporate in their mass - "better water". They go even even a step farther. They produce gametes which in turn feed your corals and other filter feeders)

Where are these ideas documented? Especially in regards to aquariums, not in lagoons?
I know Ron says it, but do you have any non Ron study that supports his ideas? In a massive thread on another board, no one was able to produce any such study.
If the idea is to take energy out of the detritus so there is less for the bacteria to convert and algae to incorporate in their mass, doesn't it make more sense to simply remove the detritus before the worms and bacteria get it to create 'less better water'? If you are keeping the worms because you like them, sure, but if your goal is to have 'better water' for corals why bother with the additional biomass?

and there is only anecdotal evidence (see Shimek's article on this a few months back in reefkeeping magazine) of LR functioning as a means of filtration.

I think it was pretty funny for Ron to claim anecdotal evidence, when most of his ideas have only anecdotal support especially in regards to aquariums.
To put it bluntly, I don't trust Ron or his studies - too many holes and too much of a cult of personality. Any studies, anecdotal or otherwise that were done independently?

Good discussion!

 

[romunov]

Any actual studies - not just Ron saying so?

From what I've read, he's not just saying so. He actually studied sediment. I think it was up north, Alaska.

But it is the organic 'fixing' of p in the bacteria that seems to be problematic.

In nature, it's not a problem, because in a sand bed that has a healthy population of fauna (and flora), the bacteria get eaten up, and the cycle goes on.

Where are these ideas documented? Especially in regards to aquariums, not in lagoons?

I am not aware of any studies done in a reef tanks, but I'm sure you'll be able to find some.

If the idea is to take energy out of the detritus so there is less for the bacteria to convert and algae to incorporate in their mass, doesn't it make more sense to simply remove the detritus before the worms and bacteria get it to create 'less better water'?

Agreed, but this is not the way it's done in nature. As a side note, this detritus is coral food as well.

I think it was pretty funny for Ron to claim anecdotal evidence, when most of his ideas have only anecdotal support especially in regards to aquariums.

What do you think he claimed anecdotal evidence? I think because he has no evidence. To find these evidence, one needs a lab, and some hot rod equipment, and possibly a federal grant. No one will give you a buck load of money to see if live rock in aquaria does "anything".
As I recall, in that article, he drew no conclusions.

To put it bluntly, I don't trust Ron or his studies - too many holes and too much of a cult of personality. Any studies, anecdotal or otherwise that were done independently?

You can always ask the man in person here. I'm sure he'll be able to provide you with reference to any other studies he might be aware of. I am currently digging into something else, and have my hands full atm (I'm currently reading, among other things, "An aquarium experiment for identifying the physical factors inducing morphological change in two massive sclerectinian corals - Todd, Sidle, Lewin-Koh, Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 299 (2004) 97-113 ).

I can give you a bunch of references to how biodiversity influences productivity, sustainability, performace of the eco system and on and on...

 

[Anonymous]

Any actual studies - not just Ron saying so?

From what I've read, he's not just saying so. He actually studied sediment. I think it was up north, Alaska.

That is often the answer to questions about Rons ideas. So far no one has actually produced the studies.

But it is the organic 'fixing' of p in the bacteria that seems to be problematic.

In nature, it's not a problem, because in a sand bed that has a healthy population of fauna (and flora), the bacteria get eaten up, and the cycle goes on.

It can be a problem in nature - the black water events in Florida come to mind, and do any other euthropic event.

Where are these ideas documented? Especially in regards to aquariums, not in lagoons?

I am not aware of any studies done in a reef tanks, but I'm sure you'll be able to find some.

I can find none, nor can anyone else so far. Thats why I keep asking.

If the idea is to take energy out of the detritus so there is less for the bacteria to convert and algae to incorporate in their mass, doesn't it make more sense to simply remove the detritus before the worms and bacteria get it to create 'less better water'?

Agreed, but this is not the way it's done in nature. As a side note, this detritus is coral food as well.

Sand beds are also not how its done in most of nature. Mostly its done by exporting the detritus off the reefs and into lagoons and the abyssal plain.
Detritus can only be used to feed coral if it is in the water column, not stuck in the sand bed or in critters in the sand bed.

I think it was pretty funny for Ron to claim anecdotal evidence, when most of his ideas have only anecdotal support especially in regards to aquariums.

What do you think he claimed anecdotal evidence? I think because he has no evidence. To find these evidence, one needs a lab, and some hot rod equipment, and possibly a federal grant. No one will give you a buck load of money to see if live rock in aquaria does "anything".
As I recall, in that article, he drew no conclusions.

I meant that petty much all of his conclusions regarding reef tanks are anecdotal, not the LR article.

To put it bluntly, I don't trust Ron or his studies - too many holes and too much of a cult of personality. Any studies, anecdotal or otherwise that were done independently?

You can always ask the man in person here. I'm sure he'll be able to provide you with reference to any other studies he might be aware of.

He has been asked a bunch of times by people like me, and by people more learned than me. The answer has often been 'the studies are out there', but no direct link, or a gigantic list of studies which don't seem to support his ideas. If the information is so readily available, he could simply quote the paper. That he doesn't do this is suspicious.
Maybe you can get it out of him.

I am currently digging into something else, and have my hands full atm (I'm currently reading, among other things, "An aquarium experiment for identifying the physical factors inducing morphological change in two massive sclerectinian corals - Todd, Sidle, Lewin-Koh, Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 299 (2004) 97-113 ).

I can give you a bunch of references to how biodiversity influences productivity, sustainability, performace of the eco system and on and on...

Sound like fun.
I agree about biodiversity. An aquarium is very different from an ecosystem in nature. What I don't see is evidence that a sand bed gets you any kind of needed biodiversity in an aquarium - just people saying it does. What I do see is lots of evidence that a sand bed poses some very real dangers due to re release of p and hydrogen sulfide.

BTW, if it isn't clear, I am not a sand bed hater. I think they have their place. But I do question the current dogma that they need to be so ubiquitous.

 

[ChrisRD]

I'm far from an expert on the subject, but from what I read and watch on TV about wild reefs, most of the wastes are not processed locally, but rather just washed away (dillution). Ultimately, this stuff ends up on the so-called "abyssal plains" down at the bottom of the oceans. I don't get the impression from these sources that sediments in and around wild reefs actually process much waste.

 

[romunov]

Actually, most of the stuff ends up in lagoons adjacent to the reef. That's where all the detritivores live. 8)

or a gigantic list of studies which don't seem to support his ideas

I'd like to see that list.
How do you know they don't support his studies? Have you read them all? Has any one?

What I do see is lots of evidence that a sand bed poses some very real dangers due to re release of p and hydrogen sulfide.

I've heard of this, although not from people who have actually had this.

There is also one problem. I asses (no studies done ) that about 90% with DSBs don't have it set up correctly, namely, the sand is too coarse, they don't seed it with proper detritovores, they have predators that eat those detritivores (like certain fish, sand sifting stars or hermit crabs).

To quote Ron on this subject:

Most folks setting up refuges with "DSBs" haven't a clue about what they are doing.

 

[K9coral]

Yes, unless you want your sand to like someone just took a dump on after a chilli meal.

 

[ChrisRD]

Actually, most of the stuff ends up in lagoons adjacent to the reef.

How do you know this?

 

[K9coral]

He follows it using a snorkel!

 

[ChrisRD]

:lol:

 

[Anonymous]

Actually, most of the stuff ends up in lagoons adjacent to the reef. That's where all the detritivores live. 8)

What about reef like the GBR that don't have adjacent lagoons?

or a gigantic list of studies which don't seem to support his ideas

I'd like to see that list.

In his forum there was a recent thread where he posted such a list. THis post talks about it and has a link to the list:
http://reefs.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=722663#722663

But I think you have already seen the list!

How do you know they don't support his studies? Have you read them all? Has any one?

None of the titles refer to the questions being asked of him. I haven't read them all, basically because of the above and the list being so long makes me believe he is being deliberately obtuse - it would be very easy to post one study in particular.

What I do see is lots of evidence that a sand bed poses some very real dangers due to re release of p and hydrogen sulfide.

I've heard of this, although not from people who have actually had this.[/quote]

I believe I have had it twice, both times from a sand bed disturbance.

There is also one problem. I asses (no studies done ) that about 90% with DSBs don't have it set up correctly, namely, the sand is too coarse, they don't seed it with proper detritovores, they have predators that eat those detritivores (like certain fish, sand sifting stars or hermit crabs).

To quote Ron on this subject:

Most folks setting up refuges with "DSBs" haven't a clue about what they are doing.

I think that it is sad Ron isn't doing much to correct this problem. It also seems like a real last ditch play for an dying idea! :wink:

Here's a fun thread:
http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthrea ... ublication

 

[romunov]

I believe I have had it twice, both times from a sand bed disturbance.

Well, first of all, the DSB must never be distrubed other than authorized personel only.
Second, you must be more specific when saying "DSB". What grain size did you use, how many times have you recharged it and with what/how many animals, size, etc...

 

[Anonymous]

Here's a fun thread:
http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthrea ... ublication

:lol: I thoughly enjoyed that one, and the others on the subject

 

[Anonymous]

I believe I have had it twice, both times from a sand bed disturbance.

Well, first of all, the DSB must never be distrubed other than authorized personel only.

You betcha! Too bad a power head is not aware of that policy!
Actually, the never disturb idea worries me in and of itself.

Second, you must be more specific when saying "DSB". What grain size did you use, how many times have you recharged it and with what/how many animals, size, etc...

I said sand bed, not DSB. There is no way I am going to do the work and critter counts and recharrges that Ron says is needed to do his style of DSB.
Other than that, it seems that all sand beds over 2 inches present the same possibility of danger.

 

[Anonymous]

Righty...

i did look around some the other day for a scientific article and didn't find anything interesting or valid so i didn't bother to post.
there is something i wanted to ask you though in follow up to this discussion and in how LR plays into your reefkeeping.
i've got some random thoughts to throw at ya... i would love to clean them up but lack the clarity today.

i wanted to know if you think that a porous material cultured with bacteria would do every bit as good of a job as LR?
it was some time ago that i forecasted a trend heading back to the old berlin wet/drys with the denitrification media in it... so what do you say?

also someone mentioned biodiversity in this thread and it didn't go far...
from what i have read written by real scientists other than Dr Ron, is that biodiversity is viewed as an unofficial gauge of health in aquatic ecosystems... correct?
if this is so then it stands to reason that the same would hold true in our systems, no?

i seem to think so, and as one would guess i believe that LR and LS add biodiversity which in turn indicates health if they thrive as opposed to die.

oi... long day...

 

[Anonymous]

Righty...

i did look around some the other day for a scientific article and didn't find anything interesting or valid so i didn't bother to post.
there is something i wanted to ask you though in follow up to this discussion and in how LR plays into your reefkeeping.
i've got some random thoughts to throw at ya... i would love to clean them up but lack the clarity today.

Sweet!

i wanted to know if you think that a porous material cultured with bacteria would do every bit as good of a job as LR?

Sure. Artificial rock is just that. There are also reefers who don't like LR at all and consider it just as 'bad' as sand.

it was some time ago that i forecasted a trend heading back to the old berlin wet/drys with the denitrification media in it... so what do you say?

I don't think that will happen but some people still swear by w/d.

also someone mentioned biodiversity in this thread and it didn't go far...
from what i have read written by real scientists other than Dr Ron, is that biodiversity is viewed as an unofficial gauge of health in aquatic ecosystems... correct?

Not sure.

if this is so then it stands to reason that the same would hold true in our systems, no?

It depends. Our systems have little in common with natural systems, so it seems to stand to reason that everything doesn't make sense for both. There are lots of things we try to keep out of our systems even though they would make them more diverse.

i seem to think so, and as one would guess i believe that LR and LS add biodiversity which in turn indicates health if they thrive as opposed to die.

Except there are plenty of tanks that are very healthy that don't use LR and LS. I think it may be best if we only put things in our tanks that we want in our tanks.

oi... long day...

Hope it gets better!

 

[romunov]

from what i have read written by real scientists other than Dr Ron, is that biodiversity is viewed as an unofficial gauge of health in aquatic ecosystems... correct?
if this is so then it stands to reason that the same would hold true in our systems, no?

Very good question.
What biodiversity means that there are a number of different species of animals (and other life, of course, like protists, algae, et al). And if there is a great number of diverse creatures, there is a high chance that these creatures will eat basically everything that the aquarist can serve them. This means that the energy from the food will get incorporated into living mass easier and more efficiently, thus cleaning the water of good ol' nutrients that make this world go around.
This is basically the idea of a DSB propagated by Shimek, Toonen, others, and finally, me. :wink:

 

[Anonymous]

from what i have read written by real scientists other than Dr Ron, is that biodiversity is viewed as an unofficial gauge of health in aquatic ecosystems... correct?
if this is so then it stands to reason that the same would hold true in our systems, no?

Very good question.
What biodiversity means that there are a number of different species of animals (and other life, of course, like protists, algae, et al). And if there is a great number of diverse creatures, there is a high chance that these creatures will eat basically everything that the aquarist can serve them. This means that the energy from the food will get incorporated into living mass easier and more efficiently, thus cleaning the water of good ol' nutrients that make this world go around.
This is basically the idea of a DSB propagated by Shimek, Toonen, others, and finally, me. :wink:

Good stuff. The other side is the idea of simply removing stuff from the wc before it even has a chance to break down and giving you a lower bio load to boot!

Great discussion.

Marked for archiving.

 

[Anonymous]

Actually, most of the stuff ends up in lagoons adjacent to the reef. That's where all the detritivores live. 8)

This is incorrect. The overall trend is that lagoons supply reefs with nutrients, not vice versa.

 

[Anonymous]

Hi Podman, I hope you don't mind me throwing some thoughts out...

Righty...

i wanted to know if you think that a porous material cultured with bacteria would do every bit as good of a job as LR?

For denitrification? I think so, yes, as long as the porosity has a character so that you have a good quantity of those low oxygen zones (a la live rock).

also someone mentioned biodiversity in this thread and it didn't go far... from what i have read written by real scientists other than Dr Ron, is that biodiversity is viewed as an unofficial gauge of health in aquatic ecosystems... correct?

No. The appropriate biodiversity demographic is far more important. Think shifts when longspines disappeared. Or monospecific stands or elkhorn that have died and been taken over by a multitude of borer and algae species.

if this is so then it stands to reason that the same would hold true in our systems, no?

Biodiversity means bioload. System dynamics (ie, storage of organics) is far more important to look at.

 

[Anonymous]

Hi Podman, I hope you don't mind me throwing some thoughts out...

Righty...

i wanted to know if you think that a porous material cultured with bacteria would do every bit as good of a job as LR?

For denitrification? I think so, yes, as long as the porosity has a character so that you have a good quantity of those low oxygen zones (a la live rock).

also someone mentioned biodiversity in this thread and it didn't go far... from what i have read written by real scientists other than Dr Ron, is that biodiversity is viewed as an unofficial gauge of health in aquatic ecosystems... correct?

No. The appropriate biodiversity demographic is far more important. Think shifts when longspines disappeared. Or monospecific stands or elkhorn that have died and been taken over by a multitude of borer and algae species.

if this is so then it stands to reason that the same would hold true in our systems, no?

Biodiversity means bioload. System dynamics (ie, storage of organics) is far more important to look at.

i was hoping you would chime in

in regards to biodiversity, it seems that a large ecosystem would be viewed as healthiest with a diverse population of animalia that has had time to establish a role in the environment...
these animals being diverse in regards to the various species as well as diverse within each species (as in a broad diversity within the genetic makeup).

to my thinking this would be an indication of establishment within this supposed ecosystem.
i realize this is a very simple means of chalking things up and that it is far from foolproof.

as for the demographics, i understand what you are getting at but don't think it applies to our reef aquariums as they are way off the map.
persoanlly i am more interested in creating a healthy habitat as opposed to creating an accurate biotope.