Self-Sustaining Reef

[loyalhero90]

Sorry about the long awaited pics; no build thread . Here ya go and sorry they were taken with my camera phone it is in reality much cooler.

[pschom]

There is an article in the new reef hobbyist mag that reviews a 10 year old tank that is close to what you are asking.

 

http://www.reefhobbyistmagazine.com/downlo...f/version23.pdf

That was a really good article. Thanks!

 

And to the OP. If your not planning on investing thousands...it's not going to work.

[MrAnderson]

Thanks for the informed opinion

 

Your tank sounds very cool (pictures?) and when you say "lab" are you a scientist of some sorts?

 

yeah i'm a microbiologist. my lab studies marine bacteria - specifically biofilms, their assembly, and microbial population dynamics.

 

 

On the system you described do you employ substrate/what depth?

 

about an inch. O2 microsensor measurements show that anoxic zones in sandbeds begin just a few millimeters below the surface. my opinion is that dsbs are overkill.

 

Also, do you dose anything/how often?

 

no - what for? it's a closed system.

 

Finally, how long would you say you waited to achieve stabilization?

 

not sure. you have to think of it as a closed ecosystem, with all that entails. all populations/communities in nature constantly fluctuate in terms of dominance, frequency and size. you end up with the same dynamics in a well-designed closed system, and it's more a matter of being comfortable with that, i.e. blooms that come and go. right now i'm having a wicked copepod bloom. that will end with a bloom in soft coral growth and probably the anemones doubling. that will be followed by a minor sandbed cyano bloom, and so on.

 

Did you ever do a water change on the system when you first started it?

 

no

 

just realize that 99.9% of what you read on forums is just people regurgitating the fictional dogma they read elsewhere. what i meant by "informed opinion" was experience with the methods you wish to employ. nobody does things that way because "you HAVE to do [insert dogmatic nonsense here] dude!!!"

 

but yeah it's a LOT easier than everyone in here is making it out to be. keeping marine reefs is probably the lowest cost/maintenance hobby/"pet" you could ever own and nobody realizes it because they're brainwashed into thinking they need all sorts of crap from $300 vortechs to elaborate sump systems. it's literally retarded, i.e. backward, stunted in development in terms of knowledge. all the technology is actually dragging this hobby backwards.

 

 

And to the OP. If your not planning on investing thousands...it's not going to work.

 

^see what i mean?

 

COMPLETE nonsense.

[Monsieur Kam]

but yeah it's a LOT easier than everyone in here is making it out to be. keeping marine reefs is probably the lowest cost/maintenance hobby/"pet" you could ever own and nobody realizes it because they're brainwashed into thinking they need all sorts of crap from $300 vortechs to elaborate sump systems. it's literally retarded, i.e. backward, stunted in development in terms of knowledge. all the technology is actually dragging this hobby backwards.

 

 

That was a really good article. Thanks!

 

And to the OP. If your not planning on investing thousands...it's not going to work.

 

^see what i mean?

 

COMPLETE nonsense.

 

I agree with MrAnderson, keep it simple not complex. And pschom does not have the right idea. Maybe he would need to spend thousands for a "maintenance free" aquarium but I wouldn't.

[chrssprngs]

You're welcome.

 

Unfortunately I can't really think of a way to put it in the chamber without scraping off paint the around the section where the light would go. Shouldn't be a huge deal though, since you won't see the part that is scraped off, it will be under where the filter/light goes. And if you painted with krylon fusion or something similar it should come off pretty easily.

 

The problem I am having right now is getting powerful enough magnets to hold mine up. I rubber coated some magnets which I thought were strong enough with plastidip. Of course they ended up not being strong enough so I am thinking about ordering some neodymium magnets and coating those to hold up my UAS (upflow algae scrubber).

You can get underwater LEDs for that type of application.

[Monsieur Kam]

You can get underwater LEDs for that type of application.

 

Possibly, it could be looked into. You also want the spread of the LEDs to go across the whole algae scrubber screen. I just think it's easier to have the LEDs wired on the outside. Either way I still have a magnet problem.

[Riotjock]

first off, i stopped reading after the first 20 or so posts - there were no informed opinions. maybe what i'm going to say has been said and i missed it.

 

That's not true, coming from an actual marine biologist.

 

i haven't done a water change on my 30 breeder in my lab for 3 years and the corals are growing like crazy. no sps - just softies and one pagoda cup. just a heater and a powerhead and about 50lbs of what was once really fresh indonesian live rock delivered within 48 hrs of being removed from the reef. it seems like stasis has been achieved.

 

What are your nitrates and phosphates? The OP said he was interested in SPS. I think a majority of the "uninformed" opinions took that into account and made recommendations that includes, instead of excluded, that point.

 

i occasionally get some minor blooms of nuisance algae but they resolve eventually with no intervention, no permanent problems have arisen. i think the key is to trust that the biological components are there and will eventually balance on their own. i also don't think every animal is amenable to this approach - you can always take a survival-of-the-fittest approach to stocking corals, seeing what thrives and what doesn't.

 

phenomenal approach to dealing with SPS frags that can cost $50 each or more, that probably will all die during the next nuisance algae outbreak.

 

it would never win totm (it doesn't have that unnatural "gardened" look like most tanks), but people love how wild looking and completely covered with life it is - there's almost no bare rock. after spending some time diving reefs, i'm happy with how natural it looks.

 

This is probably true.

[pschom]

^see what i mean?

 

COMPLETE nonsense.

 

 

I agree with MrAnderson, keep it simple not complex. And pschom does not have the right idea. Maybe he would need to spend thousands for a "maintenance free" aquarium but I wouldn't.

Ok, I'm no expert...or marine biologist...or space astronaut...or f'n Nobel prize winner...

 

Just sayin that if they want to keep sps at the very least they would need a good light and a way to keep the water cool, and a way to move the water effectively, and a way to keep the calc up...etc. If it was just like zoas and mushrooms in a 20 gallon tank I could understand.

 

I could put a 10 gallon tank together and keep it with minimal water changes and filtration. I agree with keeping it simple. But you can't, IMO, keep high maintenance animals in a low maintenance system without investing some money. If I'm wrong feel free to criticize me all you want.

 

Just seems expensive and quite a long process.

[uglyfish]

uglyfish- I don't see a lot of plenum style DSB- what made you do it that way?

Your tank sounds like another example of what I want to do. I am OK with waiting for my tank to mature if it means a healthier system.

 

I went DSB with plenum from reading old book - I'm not sure if the plenum helps or does anything at all. Po4 in my tank is 0.02 on hanna and no3 is 0.1 or less on salifert. My DSB is about 4.5 inches. Seems enough. Coarse sand on bottom, finer sand on top.

 

In terms of "healthier system" I'm not sure you can say one method is healthier than another. It's a different method of reef keeping that will depend on what you want out of your tank. If you have your heart set on colourful sps, the "natural" approach is probably the slowest.

 

I have to agree with Mr.Anderson about not being too proactive "babying or being "active-stupid". You will get blooms of this or that that will come and go as the system matures and stabilizes. I'm not a marine biologist (I can barely read).... but I have seen this in my tank. Stuff grows and recedes on it's own and the best advice is to leave it alone.

[Wizzy]

Kgoldy- It sounds like a "HOB" Refugium is really just a "tank I put behind my tank" lol.

 

I would totally make/buy something like that to put behind my tank, but I don't think I have room for an extra stand.

 

I will probably have to rethink my plans and see where I can fit a refugium.

 

milk- Thanks for the explanation and website. I will be looking into it more.

 

loyalhero90- Thanks for the pictures

 

pschom- I still think it is possible to keep SPS if I give my system time to mature. Anyway, the tank I am setting up will be flexible so if I need to add the expensive equipment you speak of I can.

 

MrAnderson- That sounds like a very interesting profession.

 

I want to employ a DSB, but my biggest worry is that over time it will either become toxic in the lower levels/filled with detritus. And/or it will start to turn to sludge. I am hoping to employ nassarius snails and various species of worms to combat this.

 

Thoughts on the above?

 

And as far as dosing I was talking about like trace elements for the corals- nothing?

 

I noticed the fluctuations you're talking about a little bit with my first tank- 2 gallon Fluval Spec.

 

I thought it was really cool, because I would see populations of isopods come and go on as well as other creatures.

 

I will say I like technology.

 

However, I agree that I don't think you need it if you're willing to take the time and learn about the biological components that make up a reef.

 

I am hoping to make as diverse an ecosystem as I can with lots of biological filters (mainly plants) to help keep my tank healthy.

 

Monsieur Kam- Thanks for all the help with the scrubber and remember to keep me updated on those magnets

 

chrssprngs- Linky to the leds?

 

uglyfish- Thanks again

 

Thanks Everyone- Wizzy

 

 

EDIT- Forgot to Bold names lol

[Monsieur Kam]

Actually, thinking about punching 4 holes in each corner on both the inside and outside pallets and just using suction cups. I know suction cups will go bad/get stiff after a while but I'll just buy extras and replace them as needed. I think that will work out for now.

[MeepNand]

Bluprntguy- So if I had a refugium about as large as my display that would be about 50% total system volume.

 

So maybe 30% is just on the low end and in combination with a protein skimmer and reactors would be successful?

 

Thanks for stimulating my brain Blu

Many self-sustaining systems employ more than 50% fuge. You can do away with feeding all together if you do something like a 100 gallon display with a few tangs to eat macros and pods, and a 500+ gallon fuge to generate pods for fish to eat.

Coral foods would be difficult to incorporate into a system though because of their growth rates.

[Old Gregg]

Mr Anderson. Do you scrape the glass in your aquarium or do you just let it do it's thing in that regard? Just curious

[kgoldy]

Wizzy, was it you who wanted to set up a big system with a fish room? Or am I thinking of someone else...

 

 

Edit-

 

Oh yeah, this.

[MrAnderson]

That's not true, coming from an actual marine biologist.

 

annnnd, that means what to you? no disrespect intended, but if i had a buck for every time someone on this site claimed to be an "actual marine biologist" and in reality worked in a lfs, or was a student, or majored as an undergrad, i could buy a vortech. maybe you're a PI at Wood's Hole, but i dunno about that lol. either way, i'm hard to impress with talk like that.

 

What are your nitrates and phosphates?

 

nitrates?? are you kidding? in my opinion any setup that has nitrates in any form other than a transient spike is de facto unbalanced and flawed. i thought i made it clear that my system had equilibrated in terms of nutrient processing. haven't measured phosphates in 2 years. last time i checked there weren't any. they should be consumed as fast as they are produced, just like on a healthy reef.... but you already knew that, being a marine biologist and all.

 

The OP said he was interested in SPS. I think a majority of the "uninformed" opinions took that into account and made recommendations that includes, instead of excluded, that point.

 

as i clarified, i used the term "informed opinion" as denoting experience in self-sustaining systems. you don't sound like you have that type of experience. years ago there were some pretty killer SPS tanks on this site that were pretty low maintenance. the trendsters are all about gadgets now.

 

 

MrAnderson- That sounds like a very interesting profession.

 

I want to employ a DSB, but my biggest worry is that over time it will either become toxic in the lower levels/filled with detritus. And/or it will start to turn to sludge. I am hoping to employ nassarius snails and various species of worms to combat this.

 

Thoughts on the above?

 

i do think it's risky and a bit of overkill. i'll elaborate further on the point i made earlier... the sandbed is anoxic just a few millimeters below the surface not because of low flow between particles, but because oxygen gets depleted quickly by biofilm bacteria coating sand grains at the very surface. this is demonstrated nicely by observations of oxic/anoxic boundaries in extremely oligotrophic (i.e. nutrient-poor and therefore low bacterial metabolism) marine sediments; in these microenvironments, oxygen can be measured meters below the surface. in a reef environment, nutrients are abundant but barely measurable because they are consumed as rapidly as they are produced. combined with warm temperatures, you have highly active bacterial populations consuming oxygen rapidly at the surface of a sandbed. a deep sandbed will be mostly anoxic... which perhaps you might think is great since denitrification occurs anaerobically. however, that would be accomplished with just the next few millimeters/centimeters, making anything deeper superfluous and risky when combined with the lower flow between particles.

 

long story short - overkill and risky, but my opinion as stated above is based on theoretical considerations. see, i'm big on empiricism - you never REALLY know until you do the experiment in your tank with your substrate and your seeding material and your stocking method. i think it's worth a try if you want to give it a go.

 

However, I agree that I don't think you need it if you're willing to take the time and learn about the biological components that make up a reef.

 

I am hoping to make as diverse an ecosystem as I can with lots of biological filters (mainly plants) to help keep my tank healthy.

 

good man. one of the things that struck me diving reefs in indonesia for my research was how prevalent macroalgae were right there with coral colonies, big and small. before i saw it in the wild i always envisioned it in patches here and there, but in reality they grow interspersed with corals big and small on the same chunks of live rock - VERY different from hobby reefs. now, whenever i look at home reefs (even our own incredible totms) i think 'pretty, but where's the macroalgae?". most hobby tanks look very unnatural in this respect.

 

 

Mr Anderson. Do you scrape the glass in your aquarium or do you just let it do it's thing in that regard? Just curious

 

i actually rub the glass and try to break it up to fine mush. that stuff then becomes microplanktonic coral food. i think that's why my sponges are so happy.

[Euphyllia]

IMHO this will be impossible. No matter how many macros you have in there, invasive/pest algae will grow and ruin the tank. Sure, it will run, but you'll still have to do your weekly water changes and testing. There isn't a way around that I'm pretty sure...

[Old Gregg]

cool thanks, that's sort of where I was going with that question

[Xenia_farmer]

Personally I would say decide between low maintenance and SPS. I'm sure you could do it but I think it would take a big tank with very few fish.

 

If you do decide SPS aren't important to you then you could definitly have a sweet low maintence tank. Here is a pic of mine.

 

Kind of an old pic but you get the idea

[Wizzy]

Actually, thinking about punching 4 holes in each corner on both the inside and outside pallets and just using suction cups. I know suction cups will go bad/get stiff after a while but I'll just buy extras and replace them as needed. I think that will work out for now.

 

Sounds good. Whatever you do LMK

 

Many self-sustaining systems employ more than 50% fuge. You can do away with feeding all together if you do something like a 100 gallon display with a few tangs to eat macros and pods, and a 500+ gallon fuge to generate pods for fish to eat.

Coral foods would be difficult to incorporate into a system though because of their growth rates.

 

I like feeding lol.

 

And when you say 50% fuge do you mean of the DT tank or of the total system volume?

 

Wizzy, was it you who wanted to set up a big system with a fish room? Or am I thinking of someone else...

 

 

Edit-

 

Oh yeah, this.

 

Ya, I got over-excited and started a build thread before I even had a tank lol.

 

I still want to set that up and probably will in the future, but I have decided that I need to do more research and am going to employ methods I want to use on the large tank on smaller tanks first.

 

IMHO this will be impossible. No matter how many macros you have in there, invasive/pest algae will grow and ruin the tank. Sure, it will run, but you'll still have to do your weekly water changes and testing. There isn't a way around that I'm pretty sure...

 

Thanks for the opinion, but I disagree.

 

Especially if I have algae eaters in the tank.

 

We'll see though lol.

 

Personally I would say decide between low maintenance and SPS. I'm sure you could do it but I think it would take a big tank with very few fish.

 

If you do decide SPS aren't important to you then you could definitly have a sweet low maintence tank. Here is a pic of mine.

 

Kind of an old pic but you get the idea

 

Thanks for the picture- it's good to be able to see what others have accomplished.

[Wizzy]

i do think it's risky and a bit of overkill. i'll elaborate further on the point i made earlier... the sandbed is anoxic just a few millimeters below the surface not because of low flow between particles, but because oxygen gets depleted quickly by biofilm bacteria coating sand grains at the very surface. this is demonstrated nicely by observations of oxic/anoxic boundaries in extremely oligotrophic (i.e. nutrient-poor and therefore low bacterial metabolism) marine sediments; in these microenvironments, oxygen can be measured meters below the surface. in a reef environment, nutrients are abundant but barely measurable because they are consumed as rapidly as they are produced. combined with warm temperatures, you have highly active bacterial populations consuming oxygen rapidly at the surface of a sandbed. a deep sandbed will be mostly anoxic... which perhaps you might think is great since denitrification occurs anaerobically. however, that would be accomplished with just the next few millimeters/centimeters, making anything deeper superfluous and risky when combined with the lower flow between particles.

 

long story short - overkill and risky, but my opinion as stated above is based on theoretical considerations. see, i'm big on empiricism - you never REALLY know until you do the experiment in your tank with your substrate and your seeding material and your stocking method. i think it's worth a try if you want to give it a go.

 

 

 

good man. one of the things that struck me diving reefs in indonesia for my research was how prevalent macroalgae were right there with coral colonies, big and small. before i saw it in the wild i always envisioned it in patches here and there, but in reality they grow interspersed with corals big and small on the same chunks of live rock - VERY different from hobby reefs. now, whenever i look at home reefs (even our own incredible totms) i think 'pretty, but where's the macroalgae?". most hobby tanks look very unnatural in this respect.

 

Thank you for explaining that.

 

It sounds like you believe an inch or less of sandbed is ideal?

 

Everything you said makes since, except what if I employ nassarius snails or other sand sifting creatures?

 

Won't they oxygenate the first inch or so of the sandbed?

 

Right now "DSB or not" is my hardest decision simply due to the amount of information (opinions) on the subject.

 

Also, I believe seagrass needs at least a couple inches of sand to avoid root clumping.

 

So, I agree that I will probably end up just having to try it if I want to be sure.

 

Hopefully employing macro algaes in my display will not only be attractive but beneficial and closer to nature as you describe.

 

Please divulge any other information you feel would be helpful- Wizzy

[kgoldy]

Keep in mind that there's a difference between "sand sifting" and burrowing animals. Sand-sifters, like certain starfish, will kill off all the fauna are essential to a DSB . Burrowing animals like nassarius, cerith, and conchs are a different story. However, DSBs are not recommended in smaller tanks, as it's very hard to keep up the necessary diversity of sandbed critters.

 

I'm sure if you're interested in DSB's you've been reading Dr. Ron Shimek's stuff... Here's some links in case you've missed anything.

 

Dr Ron Shimek's website

How Sandbeds "REALLY" Work

 

And if you have further questions, check out his Marine Depot Forum below. He's real quick to respond.

 

Invertebrates; Morphology, Ecology, and Behavior – by Dr. Ron Shimek

 

 

However, I'm going to skip to the end- he's going to tell you in a 55 gallon, don't bother trying a DSB. It's just not enough surface area to maintain the biodiversity necessary for a long-term healthy and effective DSB.

 

 

Since MrA has already achieved what you hope to, I would stick to following his advice and generally ignoring everyone else, like this guy who obviously doesn't know what he's talking about.

[Amphiprion1]

While much of what MrAnderson said is true, many of those mentioned dynamics are changed when seagrasses are involved. They will transport oxygen deep within the sediments and alter the organic content (sometimes dramatically). With intense growth, ere will be much more oxygen at deeper levels. Of course, with heavy growth and plant decay, the opposite will happen, making it very largely anoxic, minus the vicinity of the grass roots.

 

Also, if pruning and removing them from the substrate, if you don't require a water change afterward, you are either exceptionally lucky or the tank is very young. While I completely agree that every tank can establish its own nutrient processing balance, which is often significant, it will be severely taxed, if not completely overloaded with such events. You should be able to do without water changes in between major prunings, but I don't advise going without them after performing one. Again, frequency of pruning will vary quite a bit, especially in the beginning.

[MrAnderson]

interesting, i'm not really familiar with seagrass biology but it sounds a bit challenging from what you describe.

 

however, i'm thinking that once you get down a certain depth (i'm guessing 4-5cm), flow between particles is largely on a molecular scale, i.e. reduced to that imparted by van der waals forces and brownian motion. does the oxygen added to this environment really help with processing nutrients from the water column? the answer is probably to be found, again, largely empirically since there's more to this than what we factor in theoretically. if seagrass works, it works... but i don't know if it does or not.

 

also, i've never had a very high regard for shimek in terms of reefkeeping - he is very rigid and not much of an outside-the-box thinker when it comes to systems biology. i'd take his admonishments-warnings-exhorations with a pound of salt. a lot of successful nano-reefs already fly in the face of much of his dogma.

[MeepNand]

I like feeding lol.

 

And when you say 50% fuge do you mean of the DT tank or of the total system volume?

I mean total volume. I remember reading somewhere one guy had a 300 gallon fuge and a 50 gallon DT.

[Amphiprion1]

interesting, i'm not really familiar with seagrass biology but it sounds a bit challenging from what you describe.

 

however, i'm thinking that once you get down a certain depth (i'm guessing 4-5cm), flow between particles is largely on a molecular scale, i.e. reduced to that imparted by van der waals forces and brownian motion. does the oxygen added to this environment really help with processing nutrients from the water column? the answer is probably to be found, again, largely empirically since there's more to this than what we factor in theoretically. if seagrass works, it works... but i don't know if it does or

 

I think it is challenging in that it is unfamiliar from a captive standpoint I'm hoping to find ways to keep the system productive over the long run in terms of the grasses, as well as keeping it relatively nice to look at. I'm not as focused on aesthetics as many are, as I prefer health, diversity and robustness any day, but you know what I mean.

 

As far as sand bed functionality goes, I don't know what effects, positive or negative, can stem from the seagrasses from what we already know about them--empirical observation would be required, as you said. I do know some of the potential negatives, though, since I've had to fight many of them first hand. At the very least, though they can be a good source of export and variable habitat. Definitely interesting either way.