Difference between live rock and fiji

[prattreef]

:lol2:

 

[jaa1456]

And just to throw this out there SevTT, not saying you mentioned this but what you wrote reminded me of it. Most of the sand sifting star fish are not really sifting detrius but are eating the bacteria and other animals in the sand. I personaly do not care for them.

 

[jimidalock]

Guy's just go bare bottom!!!

 

[prattreef]

Guy's just go bare bottom!!!

Ha, that's a whole other kettle of fish

 

[SevTT]

oh pratt go ahead and go on, I have no clue about your background, I just assume you have something to do with Pratt and some type of marine program there. And there is a reason you are only taken seriously on here and not in the actual field of study.

Aah, useless appeals to authority and ad hominem attacks, the last vestige of the obstinately wrong. A person's 'background' is irrelevent as data is medium-agnostic; someone saying something verifyibly correct makes me message no less true if they're in a madhouse than if they're a professor. And the same goes if the data's verifiably wrong.

I have nothing to do with Pratt, other than chatting with him about how effing big his anemones and clownfish were over the course of about a minute this past Sunday. Oh, and except for the fact that we both, apparently, have actually researched the subject, understand it, and have a clue what we're talking about. For every assertation that I make or opinion that I give, I can give either cited references from dependable sources (though it might take me a while to find them again) or a chain of logic which supports it. Maybe instead of being obnoxious when someone (indeed, many someones) tell you something that you think is incorrect, you could, instead, ask them for reasoning or sources that support it. If you did that, you'd probably wind up being less wrong. I know I have.

So, with your references to being taken seriously on here, I'm guessing that you're a marine biologist with several published papers to your name? Please! Give me citations! I can access research libraries and look them up myself.

No, the reason I'm not "being taken seriously in the actual field of study" is because this is a hobby for me. I haven't made any efforts to 'be taken seriously' because I've got other things to do. While I'd love to perform and publish a few experiments I've got in mind, I have neither the space, time, nor the tanks that it would require to perform them with what I would consider to be a sufficient sample size.

Also, evidence exists that I am being taken more and more seriously in the hobby -- which, if you haven't noticed, -is- the field of study when you're talking about maintaining reef aquaria -- but you wouldn't accept it anyway.

 

[SevTT]

And just to throw this out there SevTT, not saying you mentioned this but what you wrote reminded me of it. Most of the sand sifting star fish are not really sifting detrius but are eating the bacteria and other animals in the sand. I personaly do not care for them.

Show me precisely where I said starfish. It's impossible, because I didn't. I'm aware of what sand-sifting starship are and do, and I actively advocate that most people shouldn't keep them. I recommend hordes of ceriths and fistfulls of worms as the basis, instead.

 

[jimidalock]

Ha, that's a whole other kettle of fish

I was just trying to lighten the mood, it was gettin alittle heavy Randy.:spin:

 

[prattreef]

I was just trying to lighten the mood, it was gettin alittle heavy Randy.:spin:

I know

 

[jaa1456]

SevTT learn to interput what you read, I never said starfish at all, If you read I said what you said reminded me of starfish(not that you actually mentioned them) and as for the background of Pratt. I think he understood what I meant, not where he is from or where he grew up but his background as in reefing background. From what I have seen and heard I do not believe he is just an everyday hobbyist but more involved than that.

 

[SevTT]

Um Pratt there is more to it than meets the eye. You know in your substrate bed there are gases produced. One that is bad for the tank is hydrogen sulfide, produced in all reef tanks.

Hydrogen sulfide is indeed produced in reef tanks, as it is in sandbeds and muck-beds, well, everywhere. However, it's produced in relatively small quantities and is pretty insoluble in water. Hydrogen sulfide has a stink all out of proportion to its actual concentration, which causes most people to overestimate the amount present or any danger from it.

The more oxygen in the substrate(open areas) will help this escape the substrate.

Actually, the oxygen has nothing to do with it escaping the substrate. However, it does prevent hydrogen sulfide from being produced, as it's principally produced by sulfur-reducing bacteria in anaerobic environments.

The presence of some amounts of H2S is actually proof that your DSB is working properly.

Which will also help in denitrifying. Which you know turns nitrogen oxides into nitorgen gas and water.

This is just wrong. Ammonia oxidation and nitrite reduction occur in aerobic zones. Nitrate reduction to N2 occurs in the absence of oxygen in anaerobic zones. It's also not as simple of a chemical reaction as you imply.

It is true in a coarser sand bed you will have less anerobic zones, That is why people use mud in the fuge. But as for the main tank it would be better with an actual mix of substrate, some bacteria will not thrive if the substrate is to small and others to large. Sounds confusing

Apparently it is confusing, and you're very confused. The explanation of the operation of a DSB, and its aerobic, anaerobic, and anoxic stratification is well understood and much has been written about it. I suggest you do some more research.

 

[jaa1456]

Oh boy SevTT I need to have a set down with you and explain how this all works, where did you find all that crap you just wrote?

 

[jaa1456]

and answer me honestly because I have all the time in the world and I will find where you got that wrong info from unless you just made it up.

 

[SevTT]

SevTT learn to interput what you read, I never said starfish at all, If you read I said what you said reminded me of starfish(not that you actually mentioned them) and as for the background of Pratt.

True, you got me, I skimmed the post and missed that part. Whoops.
...Now show me wrong in a substantative way. :sgrin:

I think he understood what I meant, not where he is from or where he grew up but his background as in reefing background.

That was understood.

 

[SevTT]

and answer me honestly because I have all the time in the world and I will find where you got that wrong info from unless you just made it up.

Which info, precisely? If you'd like to give me a point-by-point list, I'll go through it. However, pretty much all I said about the nitrogen cycle is so basic that you can find it pretty much anywhere.

Wikipedia's 'Denitrification' article gives an excellent overview of the process, but, basically, conversion of nitrate to N2 generally cannot occur in the presence of oxygen because nitrogen would much rather bond to an oxygen ion than to a nitrogen ion.

 

[SevTT]

And you do not 5 -10 lbs of sand from a friends tank, All you need is a handful in within 24 hours your entire substrate will have life in it.

...What, are you a proponent of abiogenesis or something? Yes, all you need is a handful to seed bacteria into your tank. However, 'have life in it' and 'crawling with life' are two totally different things. Maximizing your initial population of sand microlife -- worms, pods, algae, and stranger things -- is essential for a trouble-free tank and moderately fast maturation. For a 90 gallon tank, I'd recommend 5-10 lbs of crawly live sand as a minimum; that's a lot of area to populate. More is better, but expensive. I recommend 5-10 lbs because this will generally ensure that you get a good population of all the basic sand-critters, and to ensure that most groups will survive through cycling and predation to reproduce. If you use 'just a handful' and get only two spaghetti worms, for example, and one gets eaten by a hermit, well, that's it for the spaghetti worm population of your tank, which is a pity, because they're wonderful detrivores.

 

[jaa1456]

So what about the tank you take it from? Removing 10 lbs of sand from another tank is now going to create problems in that tank. And once you can learn to understand what I write I will then continue to talk to you.

 

[SevTT]

So what about the tank you take it from? Removing 10 lbs of sand from another tank is now going to create problems in that tank.

Many LFS keep live sand tanks going, rotating in sand as they sell it. I've gotten some really great stuff from Country Critters near me.

Otherwise, just replace the old sand with new sand. With a large tank, 5 lbs wet isn't very much, about 4 cups full, and you can get smaller amounts of sand from multiple places.

And once you can learn to understand what I write I will then continue to talk to you.

:biglaugh::biglaugh::biglaugh::biglaugh::biglaugh:

While I do have a problem understanding what you're saying some of the time, the problem isn't on my end, but on yours.

 

[reefs4life]

You guys....the initial questions were answered a while ago, I think you can all stop arguing now.

 

[jaa1456]

yes I know it was, thats why I haven't said anything about the rock.

 

[SevTT]

You guys....the initial questions were answered a while ago, I think you can all stop arguing now.

Sorry, but I find I must correct such blatant misinformation as is coming from jaa. Otherwise people might think that there's an actual controversy about, say, reduction of NO3- -> N2 in anoxic conditions.