The Reef Tank banner
1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
352 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I've read and heard about it and even seen it in action for about one year now. How much data and information on using this system is there out there? How well does it work and how does it compare to the DSB? I know it needs to be partially replaced every two years and you set it in your sump with slow flow over it and it is supposed to do the rest. What is your breakdown of this product and have you ever tried it?:dance: Here we go again! :idea:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
352 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
I think to some sort yes but not DSB because from what I've seen it is thin. For a 100g like mine it would require two bags with a total of 15 or 20 pounds. It seems to maintain a 0 nitrates level which everyone wants for a reef, no skimmer is used in this set-up but can be an option, I've seem both and both seem to be doing well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
352 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
If what your saying is true then will you have the same problems as a DSB later on? Should you maintain it somehow, they claim nothing else is done. Just dump it in and let it go. The ones I saw all three has been up for almost a year with great results, nothing done, not even skimming in two of the three. In two years you suck out half and replace with new mud.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,262 Posts
Ahhh MM. this is actually not a bad concept, as the fine mud is to be replaced every years or so. The way it is set up is not as efficient as a DSB. but still works for denitrification. The concept is that water flows through a sump and into a bioball chamber. This are will build up bacteria that will process ammonia down to nitrate and then the nitrate filled water pours inot a chamber cantaining the MM. This is very fine stuff and the anoxic zone is very close to the surface, so at this point the nitrates get processed. Concept is ok because they ask u to replace the MM every year or so, so a build up shouldnt be to much of a problem.
For me thier are a couple of catches. One, the MM is really expensive. the other is that the contents of the MM are really scary. lost of Heavey metals and other contaminants the just scare me away from it. Here is a link to test on what the stuff is really made of.
http://www.inlandreef.com/MManalysis.html

Mike
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,218 Posts


Stop the presses. Remember the conversation we were having about "metal eating bacteria"? What is the one thing that kicks them off and causes accelerated growth?

IRON

Wonder if the iron content is causing the mud to create anoxic zones faster? Normally, denitrators take a very long time to get established because it takes so long for the anoxic areas to build up. If this iron content is causing it to speed up, that would allow people to use them faster and get results faster.
 

·
ROOTS...ROCKS...REGGAE
Joined
·
1,215 Posts
I just wanted to add the IME Southdown also contains iron. I did a little experiment with a large magnet. I opened a new bag of Southdown sand and poured it through a funnel with a magnet in it. Sticking to the magnet was a lot of small iron or other type of metalic particles. I'm not sure how the iron got into the sand, maybe in the processing?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
807 Posts
I looked into Miracle Mud for a VERY brief moment til I saw the price. That particular lfs is very pricey anyway but I didn't look twice. Southdown is the way to go for me. Until I hear numerous rave reviews about it anyway. Then I may consider taking out a loan to put some in my sump.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,218 Posts
mojoreef said:
Hmmmm could be. R U concidering the setup of the bacteria in this zone when you are saying creates or the fact that it goes anoxic??

Mike
In any case you're relying on aerobic bacteria to consume O2 first, it's the resulting low O2 levels that create the environment for the anoxic followed by anaerobic zones. If iron is feeding the anoxic bacteria (which it very likely is), that would allow a larger more stable anoxic zone to be established faster.

Just like it does with metal eating bacteria in ship wrecks.

The only problem I can see with this is, If you are relying on a certain size filter to process a certain size waste, as the iron runs out it will gradually process less and less and you'll need to replace the iron.

Sounds like what they are recommending.

Bob, I don't doubt it. Especially if it's land based and they're using heavy equipment to mine it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
352 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 · (Edited)
The stuff is considerably cheap when you compare the amount you need to sand, well not really but not so bad. For my 100g I'd need two bags which would cost me around $65, then replace half ever year or two. Regardless more study I think is in order, maybe once I've completed the removal of the remainder of my past DSB, I'll give it a try after things settle down. I wish we had as many people using this as DSB, to give more input on it.
 

·
A goof
Joined
·
2,923 Posts
I have a small 10 gallon "refugium" that I have some MM in, I mainly got it because it was cheap at the time and I wanted to try it. I have not noticed any difference but it is small compared to the 135+ sumo.

Jon
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top