Detritus is it as bad as some make out?

[brandon429]

Heck of a job for sure, we linked that move you did in our sand rinse thread as one of the bigger jobs documented.

the RUGF exposes detritus particles to constant oxygenation and it renders them neutral (or closer to it) faster than the other reefs here who are Berlin methodology, and the detritus is encased within different oxygenation and flow rates in sandbed stratification. At any sampling event (a tank cleaning or move for ex) detritus sampled from your reef will show a lower biological oxygen demand compared to Berlin samples if ran in a lab, and your samples are unlikely to yield any detectable nitrite nor ammonia vs the Berlin ones which certainly has killed full running reefs when partially digested remains were kicked up by a pump falling into the sandbed, or from live rock stacks that fell and upwelled (losses collected in our sand rinse thread)


The smell alone would differentiate your detritus layering from the others. I bet yours smelled neutral like live rocks or seawater, no h sulfide bc that won’t form in air pockets of high flow

Heterotrophic/common contamination environmental bacteria reduce detritus, not filtration bac, and they’re strict aerobes so that way of exposing detritus to air makes it safer, I’d vote in favor of rugf for sure.

At any sampling time yours will not contribute stores of ammonia and nitrite to a tank, or be toxic, but theirs sure can, to me that’s a big deal contextual difference. Yours is still a fine way to deal with detritus in a reef and it’s probably among the top ways possible due to the longevity of the system and it’s balance in being not invaded, that was darn good detail documentation and pics

 

[Paul B]

There was no smell other than as you said, like live rock. No black areas and no hydrogen sulfide anywhere. Worm trails were all through the mud and it was about half an inch thick as it totally replaced the gravel at the bottom.

 

[ZaneTer]

@Paul B

Please would you show us some more pictures of your new setup? It would be great to see how the new setup is going. What dimensions are the new tank?

Thanks
Zane

 

[Paul B]

I will take some new pictures soon.. Last night I had a huge flood and lost about 7" of my water on my floor. But it is cleared up now.

 

[ZaneTer]

I am really sorry to hear that Paul, I am hoping the damage to your flooring wasn't too bad.

 

[Paul B]

Luckily. I am still not finished installing the floor and most of that water went on the concrete part. Now I need to get the salt off to finishing the tile flooring. It also pooled in the center of the room and out the door to the garage so it didn't ruin my sheetrock. Most of the damage was to my self esteem

 

[Subsea]

Luckily. I am still not finished installing the floor and most of that water went on the concrete part. Now I need to get the salt off to finishing the tile flooring. It also pooled in the center of the room and out the door to the garage so it didn't ruin my sheetrock. Most of the damage was to my self esteem

Paul,
You may have exceeded my leak. One month ago, one of my 55G dual grow out skid, the top tank seam separated leaking 20G of water. Unknown to me, some got into my wall and after a week fused wire inside of wall before breaker tripped. It took another week to break down second 55G tank and homemade stand using 16 cinder blocks and two 6” by 6” timbers. Extension cords were everywhere. I set up the two tanks on a sleek metal frame. Now, once cosmetics are complete, I will have room for two more 55G tanks for grow out.
Laissez les bonne temps roulee,
Patrick

 

[Scott Campbell]

Team

This thread is my best example I have to show invaded sandbed reef owners what caused their invasion + what has sustained it

We link to this thread commonly as prep into fixing invaded reef tanks, we get the cause from this thread, the detritus. We learn about how the passionate advocation of storing detritus and being hands off can only offer 'wait longer' to owners of invaded tanks, open ended cure times. But what they want is closed- ended cure times, so we are setting the stage for action in their threads and no work is done on target without addressing the targets feed and housing source.



Has any advocate of detritus in this thread solved any issue in someone's tank by adding detritus to the invaded system and earned a fix or reversal of the invasion since we talked last here? How have you used your stance on detritus in the last few months to affect another's tank? Link that please

Scott C I'm very interested in seeing any work threads avail

We've cleared a few more invaded tanks by removing detritus since May in the sand rinse thread and posted help threads.




What I'm specifically interested in seeing or knowing is how someone here reshaped or featured their reefing paradigm by work done and collected in any other tank besides their own regarding the impact or nonimpact of stored up reef detritus. It's my claim nobody who documents work done in challenge tanks fails to link detritus as a core causative in all of them.


Since May, the authors posting here or the readers who took away their approaches have either done well with storing detritus or they haven't when working with others reefs, post what you have pls


I'm always pressing for these theory threads to be made into some sort of study-able action...let's see what everyone has done with these notions the last few months

Brandon

Your many posts always strike me as odd. Not to rain on your crusade - but it seems a great distortion to claim detritus is the cause of every tank problem. That seems equivalent to saying food is the cause of all obesity issues. Food is certainly a relevant factor and reducing and/or improving a diet is a great strategy. But ultimately food is not "bad". The core issue is an imbalance of calories consumed and calories used. Which means there are other ways to address obesity (like increasing physical activity). The core issue for reef tanks seems similar - balancing export to import. I would certainly agree that most tanks become imbalanced by importing more than is being exported. And addressing the resulting increase in nutrients, detritus, biomass (nuisance algae, etc) is a sensible solution. So the fact that all "invaded" tanks respond well to removing excess nutrients and detritus seems reasonable and somewhat obvious. But certainly not proof that nutrients and detritus are bad and to be avoided. Many folks have to add nutrients (like stump remover) to address imbalances in the other direction. I suppose you could add detritus to feed corals starved of nutrients (corals respond quite well to a turkey baster blast of detritus) - but no one seems to sell bottled detritus and other solutions seem a lot simpler. So these posts where you say something like - "We have 100,000 tanks that we have saved by cleaning out excess detritus compared to zero tanks saved by adding detritus" - seem somewhat pointless and rather misleading.

The real issue with detritus is that you need a sufficiently diverse microfauna population to break down the detritus. That diversity may not exist with the very small tanks you mostly work with. And you have to make sure the detritus is accessible and not locked up in a substrate. But otherwise detritus is just food. As long as you are balancing food import and export and you have microfauna capable of feeding on the detritus - it is not an issue. As has been noted by many, many forum posters.

 

[tiggs]

One thing that strikes me as odd is detritus turning into a bad word over the last few years. There's absolutely nothing wrong with detritus and it's a natural component of a reef. What is bad is allowing detritus to build up and litter your tank with nutrients. When people run into this problem, everyone's looking for the fix that'll make their reef look pretty again the fastest instead of trying to address what's causing the problem in the first place.

Show me a tank that's got a large build-up of detritus that's causing problems and I'll show you a tank that's overstocked, overfed, doesn't have enough biological diversity, doesn't have ample CUC, and/or doesn't have enough flow throughout all regions of their tank. From the very moment detritus is formed, it should be suspended in the water column long enough until a small portion of it feeds your corals, hit your filter floss/sock, or settle on the rock/substrate and be quickly processed by microfauna and CUC. For me personally, I want to handle things as naturally as possible at all times, so I'm not a fan of replacing natural processing of detritus with elbow grease in most occasions.

The one area I do agree with benefits from rinsing an established sand bed (although I'd personally never do it) is for a very small pico tank or bowl. In these types of situations, it's much harder (and one could argue close to impossible) to provide the type of flow, biodiversity, etc to naturally process it. This is especially true now that dry rock is so popular and everything is dipped prior to going into our tanks. Some tanks will simply never have enough biological diversity to do things naturally. For anything larger than 10 gallons though, I see it as a temporary fix that's ignoring the actual cause of the problem.

 

[brandon429]

Scott

ideally was wanting any work threads man, did you work in any one else's tanks during this interval to apply your side, or my clean side, just looking for physical application this round if poss

I like that you press for better points and better science, that's why I invited your work examples from the last two mos, anything you guided to completion

we need to be featuring applications of the claims here, not the claims restated which Im guilty of for sure. I got two a cooking in messages currently cant wait for outcomes takes a bit

casted a fishing line here, if no bite, more will come and Ill be posting em. The impacts to detritus here are astoundingly apparent in his pre pics, we haven't even seen the sandbed yet
https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/id-algae-or-bacteria.434355/<------detritus matters there


2. https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/algae-and-other-tank-issues.434539/#post-4999296

A theme here is calling out all aspects of the invasion before any pics are shown. We already know there’s a sandbed, we already know it’s packed with filth.

post what you get yourself into here, live time, lets watch how detritus factors in cure times, sustain, safety of the nontargets etc.

3. https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/cyano-going-to-cause-me-to-shut-down-my-tank.343703/page-6

Lasse and Sallstrom and Landshark have been called for work there and responded. Respects.


4. Boom post #226 highlight of my reef year is that post.
https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/t...-one-against-many.230281/page-12#post-5032239

 

[Subsea]

I let detritus accumulate in my sump to form a mud more than an inch thick.

IMO, it is only a concern if you are trying to maintain a ULNS system, or otherwise have issues with elevated nutrients.

+100. It took 25 years for my EcoSystem mud/macro refugium to accumulate 0.75”. Contrary to being a nutrient sink, this mud bed is a hatchery to recycle live food from detritus food.

 

[Scott Campbell]

Scott

ideally was wanting any work threads man, did you work in any one else's tanks during this interval to apply your side, or my clean side, just looking for physical application this round if poss

I like that you press for better points and better science, that's why I invited your work examples from the last two mos, anything you guided to completion

we need to be featuring applications of the claims here, not the claims restated which Im guilty of for sure. I got two a cooking in messages currently cant wait for outcomes takes a bit

I love the thoughtful advice and the exchange of knowledge and ideas that happens on this forum. What you seem to be talking about, however, is some kind of competition where the "team" that documents the most success stories wins the "round". Like some reef tank reality show. I'm not on any team, I'm not working on other people's tanks, I'm not guiding anything to completion. I'm just pointing out that removal of excess detritus is a fine solution if the problem is excess detritus. And honestly the problem is often insufficient export of nutrients and detritus relative to import. So that solution is frequently effective. But the fact that you have a near 100% success rate removing excess detritus when the problem is excess detritus, while wonderful, is not especially enlightening. Resetting nutrient and detritus levels on a tank with high nutrient and detritus levels certainly works but constantly resetting the tank with repeated sand rinses and water changes is not the only or even best solution for every person or every tank. There are other options. I, and many others, have posted detailed methodologies that have proven effective for our tanks. A reality show competition seems unnecessary.

It is certainly kind and very generous of you to assist so many people. The holy war against detritus, however, seems unhelpful and misguided.

 

[brandon429]

But as I go back here through pages of type, I'm seeing a trend regarding requests for anything to demonstrate the that you restore tanks using alternate means.



The number of new work threads I'll have back edited into this thread by December is going to reflect dedication to the cause. Detritus=on trial.

Agreed on repeated sand rinsing, it's why so many are bare bottom nowadays or preventative stirrers. Or GFo users.

Just for this thread, I'm going to continue my back and forth portion only as work links

it will take just a little time but they'll all be new challenges from messages and threads logged to investigate the role of detritus in both the cause and correction.

 

[Sallstrom]

casted a fishing line here, if no bite, more will come and Ill be posting em. The impacts to detritus here are astoundingly apparent in his pre pics, we haven't even seen the sandbed yet
https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/id-algae-or-bacteria.434355/<------detritus matters there

.

I wrote my thoughts in that thread, but thought I give some more thought here. You see rock with algae and some dirt, and it's all because of detritus? You don't even know what type of system he has. And the meassured values of nutriets are low. Why remove all the detritus in that case? It only looks like an aquarium with no grazers for algae to me. I don't really understand your thoughts here. So whould you like to explain how you think?

/ David

 

[brandon429]

If you read this thread then you’ve seen my work threads and already know those answers about what I think, because we cataloged tons of tank saves


the threads may hold no validity for you, I’m just claiming they’re very hard to make and that’s why critics aren’t in short supply like work threads




I’m about to upload works done, if not from that thread then from inbox work and from other thread solicits...you contribute yours alongside Scott and everyone grab some popcorn.


By December we will see


some predictions about his system were stated before he confirmed them, and I realize you have doubt about my approach. Vs trying to re sell you on works already cataloged I’ll just produce all new work examples


You make and post some too.


am inviting any doubters to match the number of works that are coming back edited on this page. the only good science is that which passes through the nano particle filtration abilities of scientist skeptics, I wouldn’t want it any other way. If you guys bought into every claim lock stock and barrel I wouldn’t want to hang out here as much as I do.

 

[Subsea]

i am not against substrates. i am against the way people have been told they "work". they are nutrient sinks. nothing more than that. they are not going to make matter disappear. there is not some magic polychaete that creates worm holes into the detrital dimension and makes it all go away. all organisms create waste products, and there needs to be enough resources to support a given population of organisms. any organisms living in a substrate indicate an increase in trophic state of the substrate. the only way nutrients will go away is if we export detritus from the substrate. as long as detritus (nutrients) are exported at a rate that matches the trophic state one wants to emulate, all is good. the bigger the nutrient sink the greater the margin for error.

substrates are nothing but a tool. they can be a very useful tool, but as with any tool it needs to be maintained in order to function at its best.

why are we trying to dilute anything? remove it and be done with the problem. use the substrate to collect nutrients for X amount of time, than replace the substrate and start over. just replacing the tool. restarting the nutrient sink. another X amount of time of easy maintenance. it is all about how you want to spend YOUR maintenance resources.

mineralization is not what we want. the point is to remove the organic material before it has a chance to decompose. letting detritus decompose leads to almost all of the problems we fight as aquarist. low alk (bacteria needing C for decomposition), high inorganic N and P (waste products of organic decomposition), low pH (CO2 is a byproduct of organic decomposition).

G~

I have only read a few of your post on this thread. I am rather curious as to your oldest set up. Could you link some of your proof of method but more importantly, longevity of system.

Because I like filter feeders, would your methods support sea apples, flame scallops and NPS.

https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/2...m-on-top-with-30g-ecosystem-mud-macro.421526/

 

[Subsea]

detritus is the cause of OTS in aquariums, and without your offsets, your tank would go eutrophic and not be 40. old tank syndrome has some pretty good published works on the web under the subject. we beat it too, solely with detritus control.

you have calculated safe amnts of 40 yr old detritus, not 40 yrs worth.



no doubt, detritus is marine snow, but we now have retail replacement feeds to take the place of that.

This thread here shows the risk of detritus
https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/t...ead-aka-one-against-many.230281/#post-2681445


detritus is a giant liability unless its planned for, and offset, carefully, then its feed reserves.

that duality is how it should be explained imo. its good in some systems, unless you stick your hand in there and slosh things around and then let the cloud flow, then its horrible.


to know the true effects of stored detritus, try to make an old nano reef keep its detritus and stay alive. remove the dilution/speed up the end results




detritus in place isn't all bad, but people rarely stay in one place Paul for as long, and the clean tanks will always beat the dirty ones where any type of action on the system is required.

during a power outage, a detritus stored tank is under MUCH more risk than an organically clean one, BOD readings would be much worse than a bare bottom system with low organic stores. all the extra aerobic bac farmed on detritus substrate are fine as long as the machine stays running...I know you already weathered an outage as well, but these are facts regarding high organic systems and the double sided coin involved. if the generator that runs a tank during a power outage runs out, that's when BOD matters so greatly, fair angle to consider for those who live in prone areas, don't farm detritus as a safety hedge.
if you are going to be relocating anytime within the life of your tank, then low detritus can be a big safety hedge.

I cannot locate the benefit detritus actually gives to a system, we have feed systems to replace it so that nutrients arent located packed into a sandbed.

if worms and pods are the goal, then a simple remote sandbed would provide that, and be pre filtered of the massive fish waste a display sees. in my nano reefs I don't care about worms and pods as much as I care about coralline covered rock and coral export, detritus lends no benefit to those two goals so I keep it out just my way.

Brandon,
Please link any scientific article that details “detritus is the cause of old tank syndrome”. I will link an article by Ken Felderman at Advanced Aquaria concerning protein skimming striping free swimming bacteria from the water column as a likely cause of OTS. The second link shows that 60% of reef food is moved from one food chain to another food web by bacteria. If free swimming bacteria are stripped from the water, what feeds the coral. Coral smoothies are not the same as live food.

Complex nutrient recycling webs require detritus as food to feed filter feeders.

https://www.advancedaquarist.com/2008/9/aafeature2



Conclusions
Coral reefs have been characterized as oases of biological productivity in a marine desert (Capone, 1992). The surrounding oligotrophic (= nutrient depleted) waters provide little sustenance to the reef biota. As a consequence, complex nutrient recycling webs have evolved on reefs to retain and reutilize essential elements like nitrogen and carbon. The carbon cycle on reefs is multifaceted and is beginning to be unraveled. Reliable measurements of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) levels are critical for this goal, and the introduction of the Shimadzu TOC Analyzer represents an unequivocal leap forward in research capability. On thriving reefs, most carbon input originates with atmospheric CO2, which is "fixed" via photosynthesis first into carbohydrates, and then into a multitude of other organic molecules. Much of this carbon, which is generated by the zooxanthellae in corals, is reemitted as coral mucus. This coral contribution significantly enriches the pool of DOC. This DOC is prime food for a large variety of reef microbiota, including bacteria, both in the water column and in the corals themselves, and microplankton, etc. Finally, these microflora and microfauna serve as food for a variety of filter feeders, including, again, the corals. Thus, the interdependency of reef organisms, both large and small, is revealed as the carbon-based nutrients are recycled.

Laissez les bonne temps roulee,
Patrick

 

[Subsea]

Their is a lot of detritus discussion going on. Let’s hear what a scientist say about detritus.

https://www.advancedaquarist.com/2013/12/aafeature



Detritus

Detritus is a collective term for organic particles that arise from faeces, leftover food and decaying organisms. Detrital matter is common on coral reefs and in the aquarium, and slowly settles on the bottom as sediment. This sediment contains bacteria, protozoa, microscopic invertebrates, microalgae and organic material. These sedimentary sources can all serve as coral nutrients when suspended, especially for species growing in turbid waters. Experiments have revealed that many scleractinian corals can ingest and assimilate detritus (e.g. Anthony 1999,2000; Anthony and Fabricius 2000; Roff et al. 2009), which is trapped in coral mucus.

Although stony corals may ingest detritus when it is available, several gorgonians have been found to primarily feed on suspended detritus. For example, the Mediterranean gorgonians Corallium rubrum, Paramuricea clavata and Leptogorgia sarmentosa acquire most of their carbon as detritus (Ribes et al. 1999; Tsounis et al. 2006). This also seems true for some of their tropical counterparts, such as Menella and Swiftia spp. These gorgonians readily capture and ingest small pelleted fish feeds in the aquarium.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

Everyone understands the importance of cleaning up after, and removing organic waste, from small enclosures where we keep animals. Everyone understands that if we don't, the animal is highly likely to get sick and die. This is why we sweep, mop, and vacuum the floors in our homes, and why hospitals are kept clean. We don't want to get sick and die. If we wouldn't do this to any other animal we keep in small enclosures, why would we do it to some of the most environmentally sensitive creatures on the planet?????????

 

[Subsea]

A perfect example of detritus as food was illustrated 75 years ago with intensive pig farms in which cages were stacked three levels high. Only top tier cages were feed grains. Because of incomplete digestion, detritus was dropped to second level with enzyme processes ongoing making detritus a nutrious food.

When growth rates were compared, the top level and the bottom level of pigs weighed the same. The middle tier of pigs averaged 30% heavier. Go figure.