[Nate_Bro]

detritus =

Is detritus bad or good? its "good" its "food", saying that, after its had its run and "everyone" (everyone you want) has had a bite to eat, it has to be removed, otherwise its "bad".

now when I say 'everyone you want' you need to draw a line, how long do you let the detritus stay in the tank, hours, days, weeks, years????? you also need to know who and what you want to feed on the detritus (hermit crabs, shrimp, fish, corals, Pods, algae, Macro Algae). I want to detritus out of my tank ASAP and I don't want to feed pods, algae, Macro algae or anything else besides the Higher Ups in the food chain.

I run 100% of my overflow through my skimmer, I also re-circulate about 35% back through the skimmer, right now I'm trying to starve my tank of nutrients, but at the same time keeping everyone well fed, if most people would see how much I feed a day, they would go crazy and tell me I'm way over feeding, but am I?

for example, If I feed my tank 1 frozen cube of food a day, and removed the uneaten food, along with the fish poo, the same day, am I "over feeding"? on the other hand if someone is feeding 1 cube of food a week, but not removing the uneaten food, or fish poo, besides a monthly water change, a gentle siphoning, and recirculating the over flow in the skimmer with the sump water...

 

[Nate_Bro]

Low flow areas...

AKA, "Dead Spots" :thumbup:

 

[Nate_Bro]

we are trying to discuss a topic to see if we can figure out where it goes.
G~

well, we know it settles into the sand bed, settles into the Live Rocks, Settles under or between objects. it can also get broken down into the water column, it can be eaten, it can be broken down into its individual elements by the bacteria, and wicked into rocks, absorbed into the sand bed and plants, also some elements like nitrogen (in gas form) can even be released from the tank entirely.

 

[Nate_Bro]

wow, jenglish

thats a mouth full, but I think you missed a few combos there....

 

[Nate_Bro]

sounds like generically, its poop. :thumbup:

i agree that what goes in must come out, but if it doesnt go in it still sinks and rots. if the frozen cube in this instance, isnt eaten, it can either settle and rot or get sucked into the filter where it sits and rots (assuming you dont change your filter sock/floss every day or so.

seeing it is a whole different matter though, because some of the larger particles are visible to our eyes but those that are not are still undergoing the same decomp process, though we cant see it. when its being decomposed, that process in itself releases "detritus" of its own kind into the water in the form of chemicals i.e. nitrate/ammonia/phosphates/nitrogen/carbon etc... so labeling detritus as anything in particular is difficult to do and is not nearly as inclusive of a term as it is assumed to be.

even the bacteria that causes the rock we use to become "live" is dying and eating and pooping so the rock that we rely on so heavily to stabilize out little glass boxes is constantly adding to the detritus in the tank.

i feel like after typing this that i have convinced myself that the term detritus is simply an umbrella term for anything that we would like to remove from our tanks, what we would consider a contaminant but is a necessary part of any ecosystem

correct or incorrect?

kinda like what I said, but "what we would consider a contaminant but is a necessary part of any ecosystem" this is true IMO but backwards a little. detritus is necessary to our "ecosystem" (reef) as it feeds the inhabitants, but once its feeding "cycle" is done (what we want feed has eaten) we need to remove it before it becomes or is considered a contaminant (feeds or becomes available to things we don't want, like algae or bound PO4 in our rocks and sand).

agree??? yes no maybe?

 

[Nate_Bro]

Maybe.
This depends on what "inhabitants" you are trying to feed. In my system, I'm trying to feed fish and coral. If I were simply trying to grow worms, pods, and other strange little critters, then I would want detritus.

Detritus plays a major role in "ecosystems" like mangrove swamps and the great abyssal planes. I'm not trying to keep animals from these "ecosystems", so I don't want to keep detritus. I'm trying to keep animals that live on, or near, tropical coral reefs.

exactly! there are tons of people wanting to grow pods in their sumps and fuges! I'm with you, I ONLY want to feed my fish and corals! anything that is left over I siphon out before it can feed anything else. :beer:

 

[Nate_Bro]

Nate_Bro and EC hinted at something very important about all of the process that jenglish listed (which was fantastic BTW). why would an organism want/need to eat something?
G~

Like mikenicol said, I believe it would be combination of energy and "body building" all living things need "nutrients" to function.

they need Vitamins, proteins and misc. elements to produce the chemical reactions for thinking, movement, and such. also living things need certain elements to grow and build body tissue, along with elements to produce energy, as well as keeping healthy functioning organs and immune system.

my ideas...

 

[Nate_Bro]

I have said this many times....

Miracle-gro.... hmmmm... sound familiar? are we trying to grow plants and flowers or fish and corals????

BTW: how familiar dose this stuff sound??? sounds to me like some of us should be in the fertilizer business!

Urea [Urea or carbamide is an organic compound with the chemical formula (NH2)2CO. The molecule has two amine (-NH2) groups joined by a carbonyl (C=O) functional group.
Urea serves an important role in the metabolism of nitrogen-containing compounds by animals and is the main nitrogen-containing substance in the urine of mammals.]

Urea phosphate [Urea phosphate is an organic compound of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen and phosphorus. Its formula is CO(NH2)2.H3PO4. It is made by reacting urea with phosphoric acid.
It is sometimes used as a fertilizer; as such, its NPK formula is 17-44-0. It is soluble in water, and produces a strongly acidic solution. Urea phosphate is sometimes added to blends which contain calcium nitrate and magnesium nitrate to produce water-soluble formulas such as 15-5-15, 13-2-20, and 13-2-13. The acidity of urea phosphate allows Ca, Mg and P to co-exist in solution. Under less acidic conditions, there would be precipitation of Ca-Mg phosphates. Urea phosphate is often used in Drip irrigation to clean the pipe system.]

Potassium Chloride [bad stuff]

Ammonium Phosphate [Ammonium Phosphate is the salt of ammonia and phosphoric acid. It has the formula (NH4)3PO4 and consists of ammonium cations and phosphate anion. It is obtained as a crystalline powder upon mixing concentrated solutions of ammonia and phosphoric acid, or on the addition of excess of ammonia to the acid phosphate (NH4)2(HPO4). It is soluble in water, and the aqueous solution on boiling loses ammonia and the acid phosphate (NH4)(H2PO4) is formed.
Ammonium phosphate is used as an ingredient in some fertilizers as a high source of elemental nitrogen.]

Iron EDTA [needed by plant growth, and also used to promote algae blooms]

As for the circle of life...

I didn't find one I really liked, but there are some here bits and pieces of what I wanted to find...

some more info...

 

[Nate_Bro]

But didn't we discuss this earlier? Remember one of the first questions was "what animals eat poo? As we discovered, most do. And some seem to prefer it over other foods. Why should we expect that aquatic life to be so different? I have to think that the snails that spend lots of time on and beneath the sand are not always hiding in plain sight in the front of the tank. I also have to think that the gobies that sift sand are not doing this as a means of camouflage.
I'm not saying that ALL they eat is poo, but you can't prove that they don't eat it. So where does that leave us?

my goby sifts sand, and yet I see the detritus slip out with the sand, now he is not constantly sifting, he may do it 3-5 times, then give up, he IS looking for food, and the detritus he is picking up is not what he wants, otherwise he would keep sifting, and not let the detritus go out with the sand...

 

[Nate_Bro]

why couldn't this discussion have been posted before i set up my new tank it would have lead to a few different plans of action that arent necessarily irrecrable but aren't worth the tank break down, at least in my eyes. Now i get that our tanks gradually build waste and removal is necessary to maintain the type of life we plan to maintain, but what happens in the ocean's sand beds is that more or less where relative to where large algae blooms occur? Put simply who is removing the poopy in the ocean?

while Brad65ford has a good idea, most of the "poopy" in the ocean has multiple paths depending on the location (jenglish hit these points well ), the one we are interested in is the reef crest, or lagoonal system.

in the reef crest the poopy is taken away by the large amounts of flow from the crashing waves, and tides, and is then dumped behind the crest to the "low flow" area and this is the lagoonal area, this is where you have a lot of softies, and macro algae growing...

the front of the reefs (open ocean) are the most active, the nutrient rich water comes up out of the deep ocean (thats how the deep ocean gets some of its nutrient exported) and flows to the reef crest, it is here the plankton, and other smaller animals feed, this in turn feeds the fish, corals, and sharks. now all these animals eating creates a lot of poo, and this poo is caried over the reef crest into the lagoon, or pulled into the deep.

so if we are creating a reef crest we need to have (I'm not sure the word) but not nutrients but higher life food for your fish like blender mush (blended, fish, shrimp, clams, squid) this is a reef crests natural food, but are tanks are too small to have a reef crest and a lagoonal system. some people try to do this with fuges, DSB and macro algae, and it dose not always end well, usually ends with a total loss in 3-5 years...

now on to the good part, we can feed this blender mush to the tank just like what reef crest animals are used to, but instead of the left overs settling into a lagoon, or fuge, we just need to siphon it out!

so dose that sound like a good deal or what? feeding a lot, with a little siphoning, and have low nutrients! :beer:

 

[Nate_Bro]

thanks just trying to understand what parts of the natural process are relative to my tank. so my soon to be bare bottom fuge (was like a lagoon) will help along with my bare bottom sump for removing detritus. now my sump i am supposing represents the crest more or less for high flow. cool i'm so upset i wanted to get invovled in this discussion since the last one on lighting got a little to technical for me, but ive been so busy. any who thanks guys.

ya the light one got way to tech for me..... its good, but I just need the layman results after its done

also you want your Display tank to be the reef crest, with lots of flow, your sump and fuge you just want them "passive" meaning just keep them clean.

 

[Nate_Bro]

ahh makes sense i was just assuming the low water volume in my sump, high flow and it being where a descent amount of detritus is A. skimmed (filter pad), B. allocated (to fuge and skimmer), and deposited (bottom of sump) but i see you want the DT to be the cleanest and most active.

well in such a small system like our glass boxes, the whole system will be dirty, so if you have a clean display, then add a dirty fuge, then your whole system will be dirty.

think of it as a chain link, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and a system is only as clean as its dirtyist part.... :thumbup:

 

[Nate_Bro]

If phosphates can not be released as gases, then where does the production of nitrogen bubbles in deep sand beds come from? I'm not sure I understand your philosophy. What then exactly is a Phosphate?

And I do believe that our tanks are a "magical physics device" that can destroy all matter... We just haven't figured it out yet!

nitrogen bubbles come from a form of 'N' *Nitrogen* (ammonia, Nitrite, Nitrate) this is known as the nitrogen cycle, PO4 or phosphate is an inorganic chemical, and is a salt of phosphoric acid.

so Nitrogen and Phosphates are two different things all together!

Nitrogen is an element..

Phosphate is a chemical compound, of Phosphorus (P) and Oxygen (O), as well as a combination of charged Ions....

...and to think I never had a chemistry class, this hobby will do things to you!

 

[Nate_Bro]

AhHa!

That's where my issues lie... Misinterpretation of phosphate...

I wish we could slide the Live Sump discussion and this discussion together...

I pulled an article in the other discussion about deep ocean vents emitting hydrogen sulfide and the bacteria that thrive on it are very Elite. Can't be found anywhere else. These bacteria thrive on this harmful gas most likely coming from the decomposition of detritus.

The ocean has a complete natural cycle of removal of "detritus". How could we get these beneficial bacterias in our tank?

ummm... before you even think about doing this you will need a tank that holds about 1 billion gallons....

get that, and then we will think about working on the whole cycle

 

[Nate_Bro]

I understand that nitrates and phosphates are different, but would this increased metabolism create a "cleaner phosphate" or less phosphate?

Or is there just a total ppm of phosphates that just can not be broken down by this method. Would it be safe to assume that this method might produce less phosphates because it is breaking down more "detritus"?

actually, you will be producing more PO4 in your tank......

technically, no mater how fast or slow your bacteria work you will end up with the same amount of PO4 from the same amount of detritus. so you are working with the same amount of nutrients, its just a mater of how fast they get broken down. Here is where my first statement comes in... The slower your bacteria are breaking down organics into PO4 and the respected compounds/elements, the more time you have to remove them from your system!

so if you have lets say a small dead fish, and if your bacteria can break it down before it can be removed it leaves all those nutrients in your tank, however, if you remove that fish before the bacteria can break it down, you just removed all those potential nutrients from being in your system!

so it comes down too is removing organics before they can be broken down more. by doing so you can eliminate nuisance algae and also cyano...

BUT you have too keep in mind, what environment you are keeping, some corals love, and even require a nutrient rich environment, while others mainly SPS, will struggle, and even die from all the nutrients...

 

[Nate_Bro]

How could you produce more phosphates if there is only as much Phosphate as you put in there, in the tank? I think if there is a case of somehow producing MORE phosphates, that would be awful, but the more efficient breakdown of phosphates, would result in more TOC (total organic carbon)in your water column, to be removed by protein skimmer.

lets say you have a fish cut in 200 equal pieces (dead).....

you put 50 in tank A. , 50 in tank B. , 50 in tank C. and 50 in tank D.

tank A. and B. are 85F and C. and D. are set at 65F

lets say the fish are in there 48 hours, and you remove all the fish that is left in tanks A. and C.

what tank has more PO4 in it?
all tanks started out with the same amount of fish!

list the tanks with the most PO4 from more to less....

answer...
B. And D. have the same amount of PO4 in the tank. tank A. has less then B. and D. but still has more PO4 then tank C.

tank C. broke down less organics, so more was removed from the system!

 

[Nate_Bro]

Another thought brought on by a thread on ATS use. What is the next step if all your detritus removal methods fail to produce results? Some systems are designed for better detritus collection than others. Is the answer to rebuild the system into a prototype of the best detritus removal system, or employ secondary removal forms like ATS, live sumps, and other techniques (macro algae exportation)?

Never have I had a siphon fail me, as long as I had used a siphon with a water change all was well. It was not until I tried relying on other methods to do the work for me, did my tank fail!

Like was stated in the other thread, remove one part in the PO4 chain/cycle, and it will cease to function.

if you remove all detritus you can you can eliminate nutrients all together...
you will still have some nutrients that you miss the first time but when your snail eats it it will become poo again and you have another shot to remove it!

 

[Nate_Bro]

It is not always possible to remove 100% of the detritus by siphoning. It has nothing to do with failure. Some environments are not setup to efficiently pull detritus out by siphoning. You can call it a DSB, bad aquascaping, overgrowth of corals. This information is great for someone who is learning, and setting up a tank now. But what about the rest of us who got pulled into the DSB lie, or didn't know any better. Some have thousands of dollars wrapped up in their tanks, and the thought of a tear down and rebuild is out of the question. What do these people do when siphoning is not working and algae is everywhere?

EXACTLY!!!!!!!

that is where I was, and luckily I only had about $600 tied up in my 29g system, and it crashed, and I had to start over again, and i'm lucky to have a tank that was built around the Idea of siphoning and getting out detritus. none of my reef system is built for looks, it was all about how I could better get to the poo.

i think this link http://www.thereeftank.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1859253&postcount=59 says a lot, if you can't get a siphon in there, you need another option.

but if you have a chance to build your set up from scratch, go with the siphon route its much cheaper in the end, about $8 for 12ft of hose....

 

[Nate_Bro]

are these fish dead or alive? if they are dead, then your answers are wrong. the bacteria in tank A are working on the dead fish more than Tank C. they will have rotted the fish more, releasing more nutrients into the water column. therefore there will be more nutrients still in the tank when the rest of the dead fish is removed.

if the fish are alive, then i am not sure the answer is correct either. i am assuming the fish are not fed during the 48 hours. this means the only difference in PO4 in the tank is due to the wastes the fish produces. there is probably more in tank A because the fish's metabolism has also gone up producing more waste. when the fish is removed only the waste is left in the tanks. the bacteria are still just cranking along on the same amount of phosphorus. its volume does not change.

am i missing your experiment completely?

G~

Sorry I meant to say a fish CUT in 200 pieces, a dead fish...

and the are no live fish/inverts in the tanks...

the bacteria in tank A are working on the dead fish more than Tank C. they will have rotted the fish more, releasing more nutrients into the water column. therefore there will be more nutrients still in the tank when the rest of the dead fish is removed.

Right!!!!!!!!!

BUT tanks B. And D. NEVER had the dead fish removed, so no mater how long it takes the bacteria to decompose the mater, its still the same amount of fish left behind!

Tank B. will decompose faster, but both tanks still have 50 parts of dead fish never removed.

 

[Nate_Bro]

got it. i think i was not following your quick answer wording. if i right it out and follow along that way you are correct. it is just not super clear when quick reading what exactly is going on and which tanks the fish bits are removed from.

hopefully i clarified instead of creating more confusion.

G~

sorry, I kept changing what I was working with. (sounded better in my head)

I had a really hard time keeping the a b c and d tanks in the right order. I'm not used to this kind of things, so hopefully I will get better with time