Good water quality. Yup. Apparently things are clearing up. The haze is improved, still there, but much much thinner; a definite haze rather than cloudiness. The NH3/NH4 is 0, NO2 is 0, and NO3 is maybe up to 5ppm but seems marginal - it's definitely non-zero though.
Despite this, one more super-red cherry shrimp died. I looked at it one hour and thought maybe it wasn't doing so well, wasn't grazing. Next hour, I looked and so I had some more fertilizer and one less shrimp. The one remaining red shrimp seems happy enough and the three tiger shrimp seem downright vigorous. 50% fatalities so far. I wish I had more test kits covering more chemicals. Especially I'd like to find an H2S test kit for home aquariums.
If anyone knows of an H2S test kit for home aquariums, please chime in!
My new theory about the shrimp deaths is this: I've got no good theory! Could be the shock of introduction to the tank and the fact that the LFS which the super-cherry reds come from doesn't quarantine real well. Could be unknown, unmeasured toxins like H2S. Could be ammonia. Could be I pushed my stocking level past the limit of the sand bed's biofiltering capacity (I'm probably triple the strict 1"/gallon rule and then there's the worms, snails, shrimps, and planaria). Could be space aliens! The unearthed rotten roots do seem to correlate with the problems but thats all they do. Correlation is not good evidence of a causal connection. There could have been a blue moon when the roots came up, too, but that wouldn't prove anything either. It just seems like the roots would have something to do with it. No measurements show anything scientifically. I don't even really know where the ammonia came from!
I've documented the problems with haze, shrimp deaths, ammonia, and unearthed roots in order to be honest with all readers, so it's understood that while I'm very sure about a lot of things to do with my particular FWDSB, it's still an experiment to some extent. I've begun a notebook journal of the aquarium in order to make the experiment more formal.
The following is not so much about how FWDSBs work but about how things like FWDSBs are developed and what things hinder discovery and development within the hobby. It is a rant.
One issue I have with our hobby is the plethora of anecdotes and opinions about things, which often generalize the specific: sand beds are dangerous because they'll bubble hydrogen sulfide into the water and it'll kill your fish in a minute is one example - in reality SOME kinds of sand beds can SOMETIMES develop pockets of H2S and apparently, there's been a few incidents where when a bubble of it escaped something poisoned the water and killed all the fish quickly, though there isn't proof it was H2S just the correlation of the bubble with the deaths.
I read these anecdotes and opinions all the time online and hear them in the LFSs in the city and they often contradict one another or even contradict known facts. We discourage ourselves from exploring many options with things like the inches of fish per gallon debate and the sand beds are all dangerous rumor. Sure, plenty of people want a standard gravel bed tank with colorful gravel, plastic plants or a few decorative live ones, absolutely zero algae and your basic petshop fish and there's nothing wrong with that and nothing wrong with the water changes, root tabs, vacuuming, and powerful filtering which go along with them if you don't mind them since they're needed for that sort of tank. Neither is there anything wrong with ADA style "nature" tanks or those european planted tanks with all their CO2, nor is their a problem with "El Naturale" tanks. What it wrong is the misinformation and disinformation we all spread to one another which keep hobbyists from understanding the real principles which underlie how the different styles of aquaria work. Those same principles are what underlie the FWDSB I propose. Those same principles can be applied creatively to develop other variants of aquariums. Sort of like basic ingredients in a kitchen being used to create a number of different recipes.
Thing is, we don't parlay in terms of the underlying principles of aquaria. As Walstad points out, each aquarium is a little semi-independent ecosystem. The principles have to do with biology and chemistry and physics, which can seem a little challenging, but what the heck, so are the principles underlying organic farming, which doesn't require an engineering degree to succeed at. So, one can stick with established styles and techniques of aquaria keeping and not have to worry about having a comprehensive understanding of bacterial ecology, plant nutrition, soluble gases, etc. as long as one sticks with authoritative sources for guidance and instructions like Tom Barr or Diana Walstad or Takashi Amano. Or one can forge ahead, building on the knowledge and experience that precedes, and do so successfully if the knowledge base being built on is sound and one is careful to try to understand what they learn - for example I study Walstad's "Ecology of the Planted Aquarium," read Tom Barr online, and a few other sources on saltwater DSBs and live rock biofilters and have a basic understanding of biology from college and high school biology classes and I asked Justin at Ocean Aquarium how to do one of his style FWDSBs, then put what it all together and learned more by experimenting, measuring and paying close attention to what was happening (should've been taking notes, though) and now I [believe I] have a fairly complete understanding of how my sorta FWDSB works and sure knowledge on how to duplicate what I've already got. Or one can fumble along without deep understanding, being guided by anecdotes, apocrypha, rumors, and uninformed misinterpretations of scientific knowledge all from well meaning people who feel reasonably sure of the soundness of their advice.
That last route, with the anecdotes, etc., just restricts potential for creativity at best, and at worst leads to disasters. Since it's popular to be cautious and conservative, most of that advice is just restrictive, like the inches per gallon rule or the notion one's filter ought to circulate 10x the capacity of the tank per hour or that deep sand beds cannot work with freshwater. It bothers me immensely to see this sort of stereotyped advice, "popular wisdom." It also bothers me to read the debates such as the one on what is a better guideline or system for stocking a tank. They are full of arguments based not on facts or even good theories necessarily. Just check out all the discussion of stocking - is it about oxygen supply and CO2? How does oxygen best get absorbed into the tank and what about CO2 levels and how to manage them if necessary? Or is it about bioload? Or is it about being humane to fish and what are their healthy behavioral needs anyhow? How do we know what the oxygen requirments or bioload of a fish is? Length? Volume? Mass? Activity Level? How is it known that corys are only happy in groups of six or more? (I have three happy seeming cordydoras harbrosas, by the way, who hang out together and forage and have nice vivid markings and are active - so who's to tell me they're not happy?) or that blue rams definitively need a 20 gallon tank minimum? And does the behavioral approach to stocking a tank take into account its decor, planting, tank format (cube, tall rectangle, column, rectangle, globe, etc.)?
In discussing my FWDSB I'm sure I'm a violator according to my own rant, above. However, I try to discuss the "ingredients" to my "recipe" so it amounts to "this sort of FWDSB works in such and such a way and does such and such things" rather than lay down a law like "DSBs work in freshwater." For example, my tank has worked well with miniscule power filtration, like 25gph for a 9 gal tank, and no vacuuming but I'd never say you should follow that as a rule - what if you were setting up a gravel bed, non-planted tank? No, I can't tell you general, hard and fast rules based on my experience. I CAN tell you the principles underlying the functioning of my aquarium with it's FWDSB and I can tell you how to SPECIFICALLY set up a FWDSB of your own which will work and because I understand the underlying principles, I give you some good advice on what to do if you want a FWDSB like mine except you don't want worms. I don't have to rigidly insist on worms. It can be done differently and the result will work a little differently, possibly have a somewhat lesser biofiltering capacity for example, but it can be done.
It would be unfair of me to give general advice on not vacuuming and weak filtration to people not using an aquarium technique which that works with. Just the same as it is not fair of people to push the sort of general advice we find on FW sandbeds, heavy filtration, fertilizers, stocking levels, etc., when it really only applies to specific cases or is based on principles which the advisor may be quite unfamiliar with.
Thank you for indulging my rant. As a liberated sorta girl who looks up to Diana Walstad for her creative, inventive, and independent thinking in the hobby, I just had to put my two cents in on the sloppy thinking/communicating in case it resonated with anyone out there reading who might then decide they'd like to discover this hobby for themselves, free of restrictive dogma and superstition.
Coming up soon: A step-by-step description of how to set up a FWDSB, with a list of the specific plants as well as the critters I've already said I use. This all minus the dopey experiments like burying gouramis. I'll list and briefly discuss the chemicals I add to the water, like Excel for BBA once in a blue moon and Seachem Neutral Regulator, Discus Buffer, and Equilibrium. Though I don't believe they're needed, I do use them and they do work.