Limitations of DSB's

[cyberchef]

Originally posted by mojoreef

from the girthed one he says that DSB's are great for binding metals in the carbonate, which then you will be able to remove once you change out your DSB and rock every 4 years.

HHmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Maintanence Schedule
___________________

Feed fish on a regular basis

clean glass when fish become blurry (this only works before you go to the bar)

Do Weekly/monthly water changes

Clean Skimmer cup and overflow when it's full

Clean/service pump monthly or as needed

Supplement nutrients and minerals (Ca)

remove excess algae due to overfeeding

Vaccum SB, baste rocks to remove excess detritous from over feeding

Survey tank enviroment daily to make sure eveyone is happy and healthy

Maintain RO/DI unit to provide optimal water for water changes due to excess nutrients in water column due to overfeeding and supplementing

Invest in "reserved" garbage cans for water changes

Check inventory of supplies daily so as not to run out of supplements

Keep corals trimmed back, to prevent toxin wars, due to optimized supplementation and mixing of biotopes

Keep computer up and running 24/7 so that we can stay in constant touch with our various support groups with the same sickness...

Invest in high tech gadgets and test kits to monitor the system so we can adjust our maintainance schedule to prevent the system from crashing.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


And last but not least.................................


Remember that every 3-5 years we have to do a complete SB swap so that the great and almighty "DSB" doesn't cause the system to crash and kill off everything...

[Spanky]

ROTFLMAO

Don, I'm printing that one out. It's the best one I've ever seen!!

[cyberchef]

Originally posted by Spanky
>there is more surface area in a DSB then in a similarly sized big rock.<

Nope, more on a rock. It's just easier to create this with sand.

Wouldn't that also have to do with the type of LR and the density of the LR?

>From Eric B his arguement is that the denitrifing and the microenviroment of infuana out weight any problems down the road.<

Denitrifying is the one plus. That can also be remedied several other ways. Fauna has been highly overrated by people that support DSB's.

What other means for denitrifying can be substituted for the DSB and LR?

>he says that DSB's are great for binding metals in the carbonate, which then you will be able to remove once you change out your DSB and rock every 4 years.<

He has no understanding of how bacteria come into play here. Bacteria are the driving force, not CaCo3. It's much more important to remove the bacteria.

I believe this was covered in another post...

[cyberchef]

Originally posted by Spanky
ROTFLMAO

Don, I'm printing that one out. It's the best one I've ever seen!!

Hey I have my moments...

[galleon]

What cracks me up is we still don't even know how the flow of energy (detritus, etc.) works in the wild reefs. Carbon sinks are still missing, etc. etc. Yet, here is someone who uses this mystery as a platform for a closed system.

"We dunno how it works, but shhh, they don't need to know that..."

[galleon]

...and, oh yeah, I never could figure this one out.

Organic compounds/proteins inherently have N. This N is cycled. This is one of the main "wow" factors to the DSB supposedly, right? That it can process dissolved N in a single bound? Faster than a speeding copepod, returning it to the N(sub)2 gas we pass (er, our systems that is)? OK, what happens to the rest of that lovely degenerative conglomerative goo that entails detrital matter and organismal tissue/waste? (Hint: think phosphorous).

[MontanaRocknReefer]

Man it is so nice to know that there is still challenges and problem solving left in the hobby of reef keeping!!

So now I have to start vaccuming the DSB? Does part of the DSB have to be replaced as the finer sand does dissolve as time goes by? So we should scratch the Eric's theory of changing DSB and LR every four years?
I would imagine this might discourage some people from keeping a reef tank or even starting one although I don't know what would happen to my very being without one!
Ok Jerel and Chris with Mike and Don thrown in, make me feel better about this new knowledge suddenly thrown on me although it seems the DSB theory held other secrets that Ron so forgot to include in his DSB articles!!
Hey what the heck, it did get my attention, and made me realize my tank is still great to me, just needs more cleaning up to do, and loosen up the arms and bring out the sweat now and then!

Oh more reason to have a beer or two!!

[mojoreef]

Johnny this is nothing new. Actually this is probibly as old as time itself. The problem was put to us in someones venture to gather importance. As always a Hypothosis was formed from from a lack of the whole picture. then it was advertised as the natural miracle one fix does it all for the removal of nitrates, with the added benefit of developing a biodiverse setting. Problem is tht it is not a one stop does it all, it does not process all diterious, it does act as a sink for a cocktail of organics, biofilm loaded with metals and a mass graveyard for decaying bacteria.

What a DSB does in fact is create an enviroment that is skewed to the formation of bacteria. With the addition of metals and other compounds, we have now created disneyland for dissimilatory metal-reducing and sulfate-reducing bacteria. Which in one way is good because they will detoxicfy metals that may enter our tanks. Problem is that bacteria die and or enter the food chain. So the ones that die will slip through the DSB and begin to build up. or if they enter the food chain they can be consumed by this fuana which in turn is eaten by ...say our fish, or even the bacteria can be directly eaten by our corals (look out SPS keepers). So if one weighs the benefits of a DSB and then compares it to the down side I would think the downs would win.

Or we could forget all the science and just put the blame on the Salt and Additive makers and then call it a day.

mike

[Casey]

Ha now I know why my LFS says sand beds suk they have nothing on the bottom and there tank looks great. Casey

[MontanaRocknReefer]

Thanks Mike alot I got but you added to it! Anybody else! Do you still have a DSB in your refugium? I think this would be easier to clean it and how about 2" of fine sand in the main tank? Is this still acceptable and have the complete reef look? Fun times will be had by all but it's great to know you guys are on top of it and willing to share with the rest of us!!

[dark horge]

Let's just talk metals, since that is the gremlin being conjured up.

You can't indefinitely accumulate metals in the anoxic layers.
Unless you have effective algal uptake/assimilation, and some means of export, you run the risk of an acidic episode, or plain physical disturbance turning the tank potentially-toxic (and I'm talking about metals stockpiled under the bed). Heck, there's plain old bed saturation to consider.

It's ironic (Fe being one of the few metals tolerated) that all this attention is being focused on contaminant metals in salt mixes, when the primary source for excess metals is food imports.

DSB's, if I recall, are meant to allow the operation of high-energy foodwebs. I will agree with Ron that DSB's take a serious whack at niitrogenous waste --I've said so here before. But if a DSB-based system can't handle the accumulation of metals, then what's the point? Your system is still headed for a crash.

This is one of those ancient discussions we've had, which he seemed recently to consider: see his belated exploration of algal export as a support to DSB's. The problem with just slapping on an algal filter is that remote location severely undercuts the algal filter's ability to help the DSB with housecleaning: If the detritus is buried under fine sand, 'locked up', how the frag can a distant algal filter take a decent whack at the metals bound to it?

The few true coral reef-zone sandbeds I've seen in the wild (as in SB's that hew closely to Ron's fine-grain DSB), involve a fixing matrix of Hypnea pannosa, Caulerpa serrulata, and/or other tangly, medium-size cross section algae. The algal matrix helps anchor the bed, otherwise, even mild current would strip away fine grains. In return, partial burial keeps the algae from complete obliteration by herbivores. Perhaps this is one way to save the DSB --I don't know-- certainly if you observe these wild examples --they are 'run' by God quite differently from the static way DSB's are being operated by their proponents.

I mean sure, you'll find better wild analogues of DSB's in nearshore, silty shallows, mangal zones, etc. But those areas are precisely nutrient and fine-debris catchments. The key difference with true-reef zones: hydraulic export.

Even those algal-anchored wild SB's I saw were subject to annual, thorough (and prolonged) renewal through storm action. I posted on RC before about the merit of such a "giant reset button" ---both in terms of obtaining metallic tabula rasa, and for addressing overdominance of certain sandbed fauna/flora (diversity in such a small volume will decline over time unless an environmental episode reduces all species to square one). It's a pity the thread was deleted in Ron's forum ---possibly because of Richard Harker participation.

Unless you can mimic the export function of water currents, you will have a very hard time sustaining a system free of surplus metals (toxic, limiting or whichever) in the context of a high energy foodweb. This means inducing better water movement than a "do not disturb" DSB would allow.

If you're not into heavy feeding, why bother with a DSB?




Besides, if we want to get into heavy feeding, I think we'd be better served by efforts to refine refugium (and I mean true refugia, not these algal 'eco' systems being hawked,) productivity, and minimize dead-food imports. People seem constrained by the inexplicable assumption that a fuge OUGHT to be only so big... but I digress.



.
Kuya Ot










--------------

[cyberchef]

Originally posted by galleon


OK, what happens to the rest of that lovely degenerative conglomerative goo that entails detrital matter and organismal tissue/waste? (Hint: think phosphorous).

Unfortunately I've been out of chemistry long enough that the "Hint: think phosphorous" missed me...

But I do feel that youwill find that the larger deeper parts of the ocean will act as "Toms" (I also suggested it, just that Tom types a lot faster... lol) "settling tank". Once the non-consumables settle in a deep/"gentle" enough enviroment, that they become part of the deeper layers of earth under the surface substrate. Slowly getting buried deeper and deeper overtime, effectively "locking" them up unless something can deep enough to disturb them. Even in the event that something were to be able to disturb enough of it to have a local impact, the sheer volume of water surrounding the disturbance would dilute it out so quickly that it's unlikely it would have catastrophic effects. Unlike our closed systems which lack this "sheer volume" so that even minimal disturbances have the potential of being catastrophic. If we could create a system with the ability to be "bottomless, allowing for generations of detritous build up, and for it's water supply to be endless (effectively making it a open system due to water change out) then more than liely we wold find that "old tank syndrom" would become non-existant. But sheer volume of the physical system would make this infeasable and or almost impossible.

Going back to the idea of a settling tank, with a bottom evacuation system, and a basically bare (referring to LR and substrate with the LR being replaced with non-porous , glass maybe, physical structures) main system is probably as close as we could feasably get. Also replacing the denitrifying ability of the LR with something (possibly even remote tankwith LR or some other porous material) that could be replaced or swapped out at regular intervals or even setupin "layers" where the layers would be rotated back to front with the "front/first" pieces being removed altogether.

[cyberchef]

Originally posted by MontanaRocknReefer
Man it is so nice to know that there is still challenges and problem solving left in the hobby of reef keeping!!

So now I have to start vaccuming the DSB? Does part of the DSB have to be replaced as the finer sand does dissolve as time goes by? So we should scratch the Eric's theory of changing DSB and LR every four years?

Actually I believe that is the "almighty" ones new idea.

Replacing the substrate that is lost to "being disolved" is probably a good idea, although it will just add more surface substrate for the "bad" to hide under. Removing the "bad" by vaccumming it out of a DSB will prolong the onset of "old tank syndrom" from happening as quickly but I don't feel that it will solve it completely. The ability to keep a "DSB" clean enough, including the ability to remove detritous as fine as "dead" bacteria, is probably beyond the capability of most people and most systems. But knowing thats it's inevitable will keep us aware enough to know to watch for it as well as possibly do things to help prevent/prolong it's onset (possibly close to indefinately). Such as keeping the DSB cleaner or possibly even replacing small portions of it at regular intervals. Not enough to cause problems at one time, but possibly enough that over a 1-2 year period,you could essentially replace all of the substrate. Starting at one end and working across the bottom, then starting all over once the opposite end is reached.

I would imagine this might discourage some people from keeping a reef tank or even starting one although I don't know what would happen to my very being without one!
Ok Jerel and Chris with Mike and Don thrown in, make me feel better about this new knowledge suddenly thrown on me although it seems the DSB theory held other secrets that Ron so forgot to include in his DSB articles!!
Hey what the heck, it did get my attention, and made me realize my tank is still great to me, just needs more cleaning up to do, and loosen up the arms and bring out the sweat now and then!

Oh more reason to have a beer or two!!

Basically the knowledge and knowing that it's going to happen, will keep you more alert to it as well as give reason to improve the husbandry techniques to help prevent/prolong it's onset. Also as science progreses, who's to say that some means to help control/remove the bacteria and detritous won't be found or made available to "hobbiests". They've found a way to use specific bacteria for oil spill cleanups, whose to say that in the future that a specific means for dealiong with detritous and metal absorbing bacteria won't also be found or a way to utilize it (if it already exists) won't be found.

[cyberchef]

Originally posted by MontanaRocknReefer
Anybody else! Do you still have a DSB in your refugium? I think this would be easier to clean

I'm still using a plenum and have no plans on getting rid of it. But I am going to try and improve my husbandry techniques to minimize the inevitable. Also, ever since I started getting into"reefs", I've been striving to "develop" a self sustaining ecosystem. my whole reason for using refugiums in the first place. I don't use them for nutrient export, but for nutrient import instead in the form of the production of live food. If I were going to set up a "nutrient sink" oin the form of a tank full of macroalgae, it would have the macros and nothing else. Bare bottom glass tank, macros and thats it, except for whatever bethnic creatures decided that they found it a great place to hang out. Removal of the macros becomes easy without the worry of disturbing the substrate and the tank is easily removed for periodic cleaning, again without the worry of disturbing the substrate.

it and how about 2" of fine sand in the main tank? Is this still acceptable and have the complete reef look?

Makes it very easy to vaccumm and keep clean provided that you have the LR supported up of the bottom by something.

[aquaticsdeptleader]

ok dr ron has qouted recently in some threads that the sand bed will last about seven years not forever (do to metal build up blame it always on something else but not the orginal ) but he has admitted it, if its gotta get changed out here is a word for ya remote

it seems to have functional ablity leave it out of the display and remote it

if it breaks down waste reomte it

if it traps heavy metals remote it

if it creates bio diversty remote it

iam just a catchy tune and a britney spears away from caseys top 40



jim