EcoSystem Ecological Filters???
- Thread starter kidwicked
- Start date
ophiura
Active Member
There are several threads, look up "miracle mud"
I agree that there are several equally if no more effective ways to set up a refugium for FAR less. Success is relative...these are not really scientific comparisons. I know that I would simply not use miracle mud, ever...but the theory behind it (which is basically a refugium type system) is sound. But you are paying for a whole lot of marketing, and you are paying for a substrate that clearly is NOT like what you would find on a reef.
I agree that there are several equally if no more effective ways to set up a refugium for FAR less. Success is relative...these are not really scientific comparisons. I know that I would simply not use miracle mud, ever...but the theory behind it (which is basically a refugium type system) is sound. But you are paying for a whole lot of marketing, and you are paying for a substrate that clearly is NOT like what you would find on a reef.
dogstar
Active Member
I dont replace it any more but my first DIY sump/fuge years ago I use their mud and had great success with it. After building a bigger fuge and deeper sand bed I just mixed the new sand in the old mud. Dr. Shimek does not state their mud directly but does say that a silty/muddy to bigger course MIX of sand and sediment is best for a larger diversity of life in a sand bed is good. Im not saying you should use it, just saying that IMO it does not hurt to. I have never heard anyone claim that it is bad other than the price...I have heard alot of statements of people rant due to their claims but again, know proof that the claims are false or that it hurts, that I know of....JME The point of my first post was not directly about the mud but mainly that their sump design is a good one and many DIYs are built to that same design.
ibew
Active Member
I have a hang on the back version which is alright I dont reccomend getting one of those if you choose to go the sump route and do not want to build one then it is a good buy JMO the hang on the back version is just to small IMO but would be good for smaller tanks like 30 and under the mud even though is not reef based might in later years have an impact on this hobby and might not who knows that why I wanted to try it out for my self to see how it performs so far its not bad but they claim that it stands ou over time so I just have to wait and see
ophiura
Active Member
All JMO (OK as said by someone else....)
I can never really say this better than a quote I found from Eric Borneman (though I highlighted in bold a piece I think has some significance). I'll beg forgiveness
for using it in every post on Miracle Mud I've done, LOL. I TOTALLY agree that a diversity in particle size is critical in a sand bed and leads to good diversity. And example is that crushed coral has relatively little diversity of sand bed creatures. But the composition of those particles is important....
Also I think we still have the issue with "success" being relative from person to person. I would love to see controlled studies though....
Let it be known officially that I strongly dislike the system - not so much that it works or doesn't (because almost anything can be made to work), but that those marketing it, making it, using it, and reviewing it have, to my knowledge, very little inkling of any of the issues surrounding it - and to me, that makes a sham, par excellence. One didn't need to know the composition of this substrate to make some very accurate suggestions about its use - as I think I did several years ago in a FAMA article called "Demystifying Mud."
Of course, my response here is hypothetical to your well pointed question and also hypothetical in that I have never used Magic Mud - nor do I plan to use it. The high iron content is obviously indicative, as we all well knew, of a terrigenous sediment. So the algae he uses (also a weak point using Caulerpa) grow well. The nitrates being produced by the bioballs similarly fuel algae growth. Mud, by definition, is a mixture of sediments classified by size and organic content. The organic component, being once living biomass, contains higher amounts of nitrogen and phsophorous...also encouraging algae growth. Eventually, this organic component will be used up, requiring more to be purchased all to the $$$ of the company and its suckers...err...customers. That, or you'll have a mixed siliciclastic sediment similar to putting playsand in the refugium. Why would you add more organic content to a closed system that, as a rule, is already magnitudes of order higher in organics, necessitating the use of skimmers and carbons to deal with it? I dunno. The reason its effective? Because you have a microbially productive sediment community, similar to carbonate muds in lagoons and seagrass areas. You have uptake via, admittedly lame, macroalgae. Sure it works. So does the same principle using sand, and probably more effectively in the long term. After all, if coral reefs thrived with high terrigenous inputs, you wouldn't see the amount of study being done to look at the effects of terrestrial nutrients and sediment loads degrading reefs worldwide.
The result to corals and zoox? Probably in most species, higher linear extension of a less dense skeleton, lower rates of calcification, and higher densities of zooxanthellae...possibly too high considering the light levels some expose them to, possibly lowering bleaching thresholds artificially.
I can never really say this better than a quote I found from Eric Borneman (though I highlighted in bold a piece I think has some significance). I'll beg forgiveness
Also I think we still have the issue with "success" being relative from person to person. I would love to see controlled studies though....
Let it be known officially that I strongly dislike the system - not so much that it works or doesn't (because almost anything can be made to work), but that those marketing it, making it, using it, and reviewing it have, to my knowledge, very little inkling of any of the issues surrounding it - and to me, that makes a sham, par excellence. One didn't need to know the composition of this substrate to make some very accurate suggestions about its use - as I think I did several years ago in a FAMA article called "Demystifying Mud."
Of course, my response here is hypothetical to your well pointed question and also hypothetical in that I have never used Magic Mud - nor do I plan to use it. The high iron content is obviously indicative, as we all well knew, of a terrigenous sediment. So the algae he uses (also a weak point using Caulerpa) grow well. The nitrates being produced by the bioballs similarly fuel algae growth. Mud, by definition, is a mixture of sediments classified by size and organic content. The organic component, being once living biomass, contains higher amounts of nitrogen and phsophorous...also encouraging algae growth. Eventually, this organic component will be used up, requiring more to be purchased all to the $$$ of the company and its suckers...err...customers. That, or you'll have a mixed siliciclastic sediment similar to putting playsand in the refugium. Why would you add more organic content to a closed system that, as a rule, is already magnitudes of order higher in organics, necessitating the use of skimmers and carbons to deal with it? I dunno. The reason its effective? Because you have a microbially productive sediment community, similar to carbonate muds in lagoons and seagrass areas. You have uptake via, admittedly lame, macroalgae. Sure it works. So does the same principle using sand, and probably more effectively in the long term. After all, if coral reefs thrived with high terrigenous inputs, you wouldn't see the amount of study being done to look at the effects of terrestrial nutrients and sediment loads degrading reefs worldwide.
The result to corals and zoox? Probably in most species, higher linear extension of a less dense skeleton, lower rates of calcification, and higher densities of zooxanthellae...possibly too high considering the light levels some expose them to, possibly lowering bleaching thresholds artificially.
ibew
Active Member
I understand what you mean the only reason I wanted to try it is cause sometimes people do make a good product more superior then what nature can provide I remember that poduct that helps grow flowers insainly bigger and more colorful then normal it is called miricle grow it deffently does and I dont care how it just works for what ever sience is behind it
ibew
Active Member
I would like to see a pro on this site setup a tank and give it a honest run and post statis on the tank for a year or two. I dont have the time and energy to do the best I could day by day log on a fish tank but I think that would end the debates and maybe even find out something new or good for the hobby
ophiura
Active Member
Really what needs to be done is the same person run a system side by side, as equal in all respects as possible, just varying whether they used miracle mud or a deep sand bed. Otherwise, you would always have question. And a more scientific comparison would be even more ideal.