Go Back   Aquarium Advice - Aquarium Forum Community > Saltwater and Reef > Saltwater & Reef - Getting Started
Click Here to Login

Join Aquarium Advice Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Please support our sponsors and let them know you heard about them on AquariumAdvice.com
 
Old 06-19-2003, 03:01 PM   #21
AA Team Emeritus
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chatsworth, GA
Posts: 4,071
Send a message via Yahoo to loganj
I wonder if anyone has taken sand samples from a tank with a DSB that crashed, with OTS being the suspect, and had them analyzed to see exactly what was in there? Like everybody else, I've read about this until my eyes are crossed. I do think that it could be proven though. One would have to have very complete records on the subject tank to rule out contamination from any other source and a complete analysis on the contents of the DSB when the tank crashed. My guess is it'll take about 15 years and a couple of hundred gig of hard drive space.
__________________

__________________
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away.
Logan J
loganj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2003, 03:24 PM   #22
Aquarium Advice Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: wis
Posts: 1,433
Send a message via MSN to alrmc4
ok next question could i do a sand bed in the main tank that starts off 6in deep in the rear of the tank sloping to about 1 to 2 in the front so that i don't have to look at as much of that nasty stuff...thanks for your thoughts.
__________________

__________________
-------------------------------
lor
like pictures? visit
http://www.shutterbugs-gallery.com/forum/portal.php
alrmc4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2003, 07:24 PM   #23
AA Team Emeritus
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington
Posts: 155
The problem with DSB's is that they a way to over sold, thier benefits are greatly exaggerated and no one ever mentions thier limitations and down falls. How can a hobbist make an educated choice. What are thier limitations? nitrogen based products, thats it. Everything else dosent get processed. Most folks have seen the results of testing on foods, additives, ASW, and so on. These arent nitrogen based. Most all metals will be bound by bacteria, enzynes, microbes, ligands and chelatons what happens to these when they die, what happens to the acids made by the bacteria to digest food, what happens to the bacterial flock, particulate dust or to stuff that is just not nitrogen based??? it sinks to the bottom since thier is a bottom on most folks tanks it has no where else to go, so it builds up. This my friends is a definition of a sink.
DO I believe that OTS (if thier is even such a thing) can be put onto DSB? no not really a DSB will simply slowly stop processing and stop hold phosphates. Has thier been studies to prove this? thier have been a ton of tests done in the wild in regard to nutrient cycleing, sand bed compasities, nutrient enrichment.
Hopps I agree with you on tank crashes, all tank crashes are 9 times out of ten due to poor husbandry. As per Dr. Ron I dont want to really go thier. all I can about him is that his tank crashed after 5 years (but he is a heavy feeder). Me and Rob have had many conversations, both in person and online. Although Rob has a nice tank, I personally want more then 2 fish and some hardy soft corals, that and I like to feed my tank.
Quote:
If their is in fact a problem with an end material that has nowhere to go, then indeed EVERY system will eventually fail. This is assuming that some end result indeed gets bound up in the substrate, rock, and animal tissue. If anything, I feel most secure with the longevity of a DSB over others because there is such a diversity of animals consuming the different forms of matter in the tank
I dont see the logic in saying that every system is doomed to failure, unless I am reading it wrong. Nothing gets bound to rock or even the sand particles, it lies between them. You get rid of that and you dont have a problem anymore. Problem with a dsb is that u cant. it stays thier, and unless its nitrogen based all the critters in the world are not going to make it go away.
You mention anecdotal evidence, Hoops thier has been hundred of studies done on this. if Anything is anecdotal would be the use of them. I dont want to steer folks away from them or towards them. I want people to understand the whole story. What is good and what is bad. From that point it is up to each individual to make up thier own mind.
Peolpe ask about alturnatives. In this hobby most of what we deal with is methods of removing nutrients/detritus and so on. We use algae scrubbers, calurpas, mangroves, protien skimmers, canister filters, refugium adn so on its endless. All this in the pursuit of removing detritus/nutrients BUT when it comes to DSB's we chose to stop all removal in exchange for something that if working optimaly will only remove a portion. I dont get it. Everything that happens in a DSB will happen in LR (yes not as much surface area, but good enough) the one exception is that through gravity and bacterial action detritus will be driven out of the rock (it has no sealed bottom). From thier is is simply removed. With a DSB we create this complex and huge system to create a SH** cycle, Why? Why not just simple vacuum it out once a month and be done with it. The we dont have to wait for build up, we can have all the flow we want, we dont have to fill our tanks with hundreds of pounds of sand and so on.
We talk about one guy with a tiny bioload having a old DSB and then a few scattered others have mature bed up to say 10 years. Man thier are thousands of tanks that are 20, 30+ years old with out them. A friend is a curator at the mott museum, they just moved a carib SPS display that has been living for 36 years, no DSB. Look at the public aquariums, see any (yea they have alot of water but they also have a ton of bio load). Next time your thier ask one of the marine biologists about his opinion on DSB's. ask the labs, the univercities, the NOAA.
=All I ask is if you suggest the use of a DSB to a new reefer make sure you know the good and the bads and tell them both, that way they can make an educated choice. If you dont know then you shouldnt mention either way. Well at least that is my philosophy (and I do not mean that to any person directly, just a general statement)

anyway I have babbled to much


Mike
__________________
mojoreef is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2003, 08:24 PM   #24
Aquarium Advice Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: wis
Posts: 1,433
Send a message via MSN to alrmc4
you babble pretty good mike i like your points with dedicated up keep i have kept a lot of things alive with "gasp" an ugf thats right the tank i have right now is set up totally wrong for today's standards yet my losses have not been extreme could it possibly be cleaning it every week to remove the waste? or am i just lucky? do not know just know i want to do the most correct thing for the new one.
__________________
-------------------------------
lor
like pictures? visit
http://www.shutterbugs-gallery.com/forum/portal.php
alrmc4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2003, 08:48 PM   #25
Aquarium Advice FINatic
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Central PA
Posts: 971
*entire approach changed, please see below*
__________________
HoopsGuru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2003, 10:21 PM   #26
Aquarium Advice FINatic
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Central PA
Posts: 971
While I find this pretty pointless, I would like to partake a little bit more.

Mojo, you go out of your way to say pretty strong statements like "limitations", "downfalls", "fact", etc. Thus, the burden of this proof also falls upon you.

I would like you to provide specific studies backing up your claims of the "sink" theory of deep sand beds. This material should include detailed studies in a controlled environment where a deep sand bed has failed. This should obviously be reproduceable as part of the study to the point where a consistent end has been established in which the deep sand bed can be expected to fail under the same conditions due to the similar settling of various elements. Just one or two of the "hundreds" you mention would easily suffice.

I would also like to see the detailed report in which Dr. Ron Shimek was able to analyze and conclude specifically the ultimate cause of his tank crash in relation to the "sink" principle. The man publishes everything else, this should be available somewhere if it exists.

Quote:
We talk about one guy with a tiny bioload having a old DSB and then a few scattered others have mature bed up to say 10 years. Man thier are thousands of tanks that are 20, 30+ years old with out them. A friend is a curator at the mott museum, they just moved a carib SPS display that has been living for 36 years, no DSB. Look at the public aquariums, see any (yea they have alot of water but they also have a ton of bio load). Next time your thier ask one of the marine biologists about his opinion on DSB's. ask the labs, the univercities, the NOAA.
The use of DSB's in the hobby has nowhere near the history and use of other systems such as the Berlin method and others. It is totally unfair to compare them in the manner you just did. I would suggest waiting another decade before stating that they cannot have that history to give them a fair opportunity to prove themselves or flop. While there are some DSB's suspected of crashing from the system itself, I don't believe it is a wild assumption to state that the same can be found for people blaming other systems for similar problems. You make it clear yourself that blame often falls on failure for unfair reasons, yet DSB's are the only one in your mind that deserve these assumptions....at least that's how it appears. I also am not impressed with the opinions of marine biologists and others, who in my experience have only created their opinions based on their understanding of the theory of a deep sand bed. That is unless they have done extensive long term studies, and you can make them available as suggested above.

My whole conclusion revolves around you producing the facts before presenting your opinions as such. All you have to do is provide the detailed analysis' of the failure of deep sand beds (because of the system itself), and you will have debunked the whole debate for the entire hobby. I and most rational people will certainly not question replicated studies proving their failure by accredited professionals. Although, if they are available and exist, I have no idea why they are not mainstream already, preventing us all from making terrible mistakes.
__________________
HoopsGuru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2003, 10:58 PM   #27
Aquarium Advice Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: wis
Posts: 1,433
Send a message via MSN to alrmc4
i would like to thank every one for representing some very well thought out facts. I have come to the conclusion that what ever way i go it will be maintained, and watched over to the best of my ability..you have gotten me to believe that all we can do is be responsible and do the best we can and we should have much success and enjoyment from it...again thanks all
__________________
-------------------------------
lor
like pictures? visit
http://www.shutterbugs-gallery.com/forum/portal.php
alrmc4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2003, 11:25 PM   #28
AA Team Emeritus
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington
Posts: 155
Quote:
Mojo, you go out of your way to say pretty strong statements like "limitations", "downfalls", "fact", etc. Thus, the burden of this proof also falls upon you.
Ohhh Ok, lol. I didnt really think those 3 words were Strong statements. But I would say that this one is
Quote:
I don't mind any kind of debate, as there is no "limitation" or "anything they do not do" and I am quite confident in that.
OK reading down your reply and skipping past your experiment requirements for the moment. You talk about asking for detailed proof of what killed Dr. rons tank. Rons reasoning was the build up of toxins and heavy metals in the sand and Lr over the years. This is what propted his salt and urchin testing. I am not going to spend hours searching RC, but you could just ask him if you wanted.
You then talked about the history of DSB and how they have not been around that long in comparison to other systems. Well they have actually been around for a long long time to. The most modred version was done by univercities and labratories. They could not keep the animals that they wanted to study alive long enough to study them. The NOAA cut them off collection unless they used some sand with bacteria and a few small peices of live rock. This sand and LR kept the critter alive long enough to study the critters. Now you know why Ron and others jumped all over it as a comercial enterprise.
Ok you make the statement
Quote:
You make it clear yourself that blame often falls on failure for unfair reasons, yet DSB's are the only one in your mind that deserve these assumptions....at least that's how it appears
I am not sure where you got that from but that wasnt what I said. For me DSB's are far from the only thing that deserves these assumptions. With when I here statements like they have no limitations and that their is nothing they cant do, I kinda have to call BS on that.
TO understand the Biology of what goes on thier, you have to have a grasp of Marine Biology and I dont think I am a very good teacher. YOur outline of testing from what I read is that you want to see a study on someones (ie Hobbists) over a long period of time. Well that will never happen. The studies I was refering to were studies done in the wild and in controlled lab experiments. Dealing with things from nutrient cycling, phosphurious cycling, Nutrient enrichment in Sand beds, remineralization and so on.
But anyway here are a few to start.
"Dissolution of Calcite in deep-sea sediments: pH and O2 microelectrode results", Archer, David, et. al.. Geochemica et Cosmochemica Acta Vol 53, pp. 2831-2845 Aug 9, 1989.

"Equatorial Pacific Calcite Preservation Cycles: Production or Dissolution?" Archer, D. E., Paleoceanography, Vol 6, NO 5, pp.561-571, Aug, 1991.

"Distribution of Carbonate in Surface Sediments of the Pacific Ocean," Berger, W.H., Adelseck, C.G., Mayer, L.A., Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol 81, NO 15, pp. 2617-2627, May 20, 1976.

"Effect of Pressure on Carbonic Acid, Boric Acid, and the pH in Seawater," Culbertson, C., and Pytkowicz, RM, Limnology and Oceanography, Vol 13, NO 3, pp 403-417, July, 1968.

"Calcium Carbonater Preservation in the Ocean", Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Vol 331, Issue 1616, The Deep Sea Bed: Its Physics, Chemistry, and Biology (Jun 19, 1990), pp. 29-40.

"Carbon Fluxes at the Sediment-Water Interface of the Deep-Sea: Calcium Carbonate Preservation," Emerson, Steven, and Bender, Michael, Journal of Marine Research, Vol 39, NO1, 1981.

"Respiration and dissolution in the sediments of the western North Atlantic: Estimates From Models of in situ Microelectrode Measurements of Porewater Oxygen an pH," Hales, B., Emerson, S., and Archer, David, Deep-Sea Research, Vol 41, NO 4, pp. 695-719, 1994.

"Dissolution of Calcite in the Deep Sea: Theoretical Prediction for the Case of Uniform Size Particles Settling Into a Well-Mixed Sediment," Keir, Robin, American Journal of Science, Vol 282, pp 193-236, March 1982.

Chemical Fluxes From a Sediment Trap Experiment in the Sargasso Sea," Spencer, DW, BRewer, PG, Fleer, A, Honjo, S.et.al., Journal of Marine Research, Vol 36, NO 1 (?), pp 493-523, 1978.
__________________
mojoreef is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2003, 11:46 PM   #29
AA Team Emeritus
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington
Posts: 155
Hoops I will look for some online links for you, tommorrow, getting a little late here.

Alrmc4 you said



Quote:
you babble pretty good mike i like your points with dedicated up keep i have kept a lot of things alive with "gasp" an ugf thats right the tank i have right now is set up totally wrong for today's standards yet my losses have not been extreme could it possibly be cleaning it every week to remove the waste? or am i just lucky? do not know just know i want to do the most correct thing for the new one.
The bottom line to removing detrius/organics/inorganice is to just remove them. IN organics are bound by the above, once this is done they become organic. All you have to do is to get a method of removal. A skimmer will remove some that are still available in the water column. Simple vacuuming out what settles on the bottom will do the trick. Some folks use algaes or calurpas (but their cells are a little to leaking for me) some folks use DSB's or plenums.
So in your choice the bottom line is to remove them. From here you have alot of choices. See corals dont grow on sand, they grow on rocks, sometime surrounded by sand but most of the time not. Reefs are pretty much nutrient free, the fast and vast amount of water keeps the water pretty clean (would be really hard to replicate this). Most of the waste (ie nutrients/detritus) is sweep away by this water motion. If you trace the reefs around the world you will see that every reef is associated with an Abyss. If you have ever watched shows like the discovery channel when they show deep water dives, it always looks like its snowing, well the vast majority of this is detritus/waste, this produces vast quanties of zoo and phyto plankton which in turn is upwelled bact to the reef. Kinda like a really really big settling tank.

Mike
__________________
mojoreef is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2003, 12:38 AM   #30
Aquarium Advice FINatic
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Central PA
Posts: 971
Quote:
Rons reasoning was the build up of toxins and heavy metals in the sand and Lr over the years.
I have read quite a bit on his theory on RC. And as I thought, this is really just his best "guess".

Quote:
You then talked about the history of DSB and how they have not been around that long in comparison to other systems.
I'm talking about their use in the hobby, it has not been mainstream until recently.

Quote:
YOur outline of testing from what I read is that you want to see a study on someones (ie Hobbists) over a long period of time.
Sorry if I was not really clear, although I will be reading up on some of the information provided, I want distinct studies on DSB's in tanks that prove they fail, not information on marine biology. If none of these are available or exist, then the opinions of curators, universities, hobbyists, etc. are purely anecdotal as I have mentioned previously.....even if they are educated in different fields of marine biology. If such proof does not exist, then I just don't think that the terms you use can apply. How can something be a FACT if it hasn't been proven in an actual experiment? And I DO feel the words you use such as "limitations", "downfalls" and "fact", etc. can be very powerful in the eyes of a new hobbyist. I'm just asking for the scientific proof that they will fail, not scientific theory.
__________________

__________________
HoopsGuru is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
dsb

Please support our sponsors and let them know you heard about them on AquariumAdvice.com

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Conflicting Profile advice fynnie Freshwater & Brackish - Getting Started 24 01-06-2007 05:16 PM
10 inches of Conflicting Info Rejoice Saltwater Fish Only & FOWLR 2 07-26-2006 08:59 PM
Thoughts/Opnions Wanted On Fake Plants. Steven A Freshwater & Brackish - General Discussion 8 01-07-2006 06:04 AM
Conflicting advice cplawrence Saltwater Reef Aquaria 11 09-27-2005 09:16 AM
Conflicting info!! What would YOU do with a 72 Bow? sumphead Saltwater & Reef - Getting Started 2 09-02-2003 07:47 AM







» Photo Contest Winners








Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.