Limitations of DSB's

[mojoreef]

No problem Steve we are hear to educate. Naked can be challenging, removing bristles in certain areas I find to be embarrasing at best. and if you are not careful a snail can be determental to you sexlife.

Newreefer I use about and inch or two of Geomarine CC. And yes I believe that a thin bed and live rock will be fine as long as you perform the maintenance of removing the detritus that collects.


Oh and Jerel I have finally got my abyss tank set up. A ton of paperwork, red tank and nevermind getting them to drain the lake.



Mike

[NewReefer]

LOL HEHE!

Now your thinking!

[Spanky]

ROTFLMAO

[Spanky]

Let me run this by you guys. Suppose this -

As a sand bed gets older and more and more of this fine 'end product detritus' (I'm beginning to hate that phrase) builds up. Isn't it also possible that it will move you anoxic (formerly known as anaerobic) zone up higher and higher?

Ever notice in a fairly new DSB, you're worm tracks are down pretty deep. And as the bed ages, the worm tracks get shallower and shallower?

As the anoxic zone moves up it has to displace your aerobic zone.

While at the same time the sand bed is becoming better at processing nitrates, it's becoming a whole lot worse at processing ammonia and nitrites and it's ability to deliver those products to the anoxic zone.

Could that explain the "leaking"? Not that it's actually leaking, it's just loosing it's ability to process ammonia, nitrites, and in turn nitrates. And also it's ability to store phosphates.

[SPC]

Mike

That makes sence to me Jerel. On that same thought. I never could understand why Ron said the finer the sand the better (mud being the best). Now I can understand that the sand bed fauna may like it better, but it would seem to me that:
1. It would clog up rather quickly.
2. The aerobic zone and the anoxic zone would be very narrow.
Steve

[Spanky]

Steve

Correct me if I'm wrong, I get all these super stars mixed up.

Didn't someone even come out with a formula for DSB's at one time? Something like -

You need X amount of anaerobic sand and Y amount of aerobic sand and Z amount of sand size and W amount of flow, etc etc

Well right here, in a old bed you're numbers can't work.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by SPC

1. It would clog up rather quickly.
2. The aerobic zone and the anoxic zone would be very narrow.
Steve

1. It works quicker and hides more sins faster.

2. Ron's hung up on worms. If you keep enough worms in there turning it over fast enough.

[SPC]

Originally posted by Spanky
Steve

Correct me if I'm wrong, I get all these super stars mixed up.

Didn't someone even come out with a formula for DSB's at one time? Something like -

You need X amount of anaerobic sand and Y amount of aerobic sand and Z amount of sand size and W amount of flow, etc etc

Well right here, in a old bed you're numbers can't work.

Yea, but I can't remember who it was, maybe Rob Toonen.

Originally posted by Spanky
2. Ron's hung up on worms. If you keep enough worms in there turning it over fast enough.

These worms can't live in the anoxic zone can they Jerel? It would seem to me that the worms would keep getting pushed further to the top of the sand/mud. Now I can understand that they might not in some situations in nature, but with our tank bioloads...
Steve
Steve

[Buzz_Hog]

Just keep adding new layers until you have only about an inch of water sitting on 23 inches of sand...

[Spanky]

Steve, exactly. They slowly get pushed to the top, which in turn gives them less habitat, less diversity.

Someone look in a old book, pamphlet, something and see if you can find that old formula. I believe it's what all sand beds are based on, and I do remember seeing it a long time ago. As good as I can remember, it was by someone who professed to be the sandbed expert of the day and spelled it out.

You need X deep anaerobic zone.

You need Y deep aerobic zone.

This should be pretty easy to check out, just visual. Say it says you need 75% aerobic and 25% anoxic, are your critters 3/4 of the way down?

Buzz - I like that

[mojoreef]

Gee Babbling bob or sell ya sam


Mike

[Spanky]

LOL well it was one of those guys for sure.

[Tom Hulse]

Mike you didn't think you could throw out your DSB without me hammering on the diversity thing again did you? Regarding the possible advantages you've given up now without a DSB, one way of looking at it is Jerel's:

"DBS's will hide/mask/CYA a multitude of sins. Everything from bad water quality, mixtures of corals, bad husbandry, you name it."

I would agree if you're only looking at it as a denitrator. What about it's other equally importantant role: live food generator? With thousands or 10's of thousands of visible sized animals /sq meter it can release huge amounts of live foods (especially larvae) into the water column. A lot less since you're using them UV 'live food killers', but I'll complain about that later.
There's no one here who can say there aren't any difficult to keep species that are out of their reach. If a DSB helps you get there, then that doesn't mean it's CYA or a replacement for poor husbandry. How many of you enjoy the daily tasks of rotifer & phyto culture necessary to keep many difficult species? A DSB is a great way to feed live foods.
I'm concerned about a regressive trend back towards the old glass bottom Berlin Method tanks, with emphasis on just acropora and coralline. An acropora and coralline tank is nice, but it's not a reef tank to me. What about sponges, tunicates, feather dusters, and filter feeders of all types. What do you guys think?

Mike do you think that encrusting gorgonian filter feeder in your tank will still thrive without a DSB feeding it?

[aquaticsdeptleader]

i believe that the secret here is that a dsb is not really necassary to generate the food your talking about 1st second no sb is large enough to support the animals you speak of filter feeders ect on its own

[NewReefer]

I had a chart from Dr. Ron, In his long term findings it wasn't a formula for a sand bed, more or less the fact is different size grains held different types of life, it was a varied mixture of sand sizes that mattered, not the actual make up of it. He said a grain size about .125mm is the overall average size that housed several species of fauna, but you also needed portions of other sizes to grow a good mixture, and even slit was beneficial to certain types of life. Think of it as your retirement investment(which mine sucks right now) you want a portfolio of variety. Feeding the bed would feed the creatures in it thus producing more to turn over the bed enough to work properly.
This said now, the long term effects of this is another topic, because at some time and point the system has to reach saturation, thus its benefits are diminished.
This leads to the next topic! HOW do we avoid this?
Can it be done? What is the long term effect or good husbandry? Will it saturate even with good husbandry, just maybe prolonged? Is this the only best way to keep a good reef? Is there another NATURAL method we could use? Is mechanical filtration, with dedicated husbandry the best long term solution?

Can someone say any of this for sure? What works for you, will it work for me?

This is my Wednesday morning thought for the day! LOL
Scott T. Ardoin