I don't think we can leave Shimek out of this post. My understanding is that he and Rob Toonen are the biggest promoters and proponents for DSBs and considered experts on them?TG Dr. Ron has already addmitted that dsb's dont export and merely act as recycling centers. So lets not bring him into this conversation, he is the one that got us hear in the first place.
I tried the remote DSb also, its pretty much the same thing as ones in the tank, with the exception that you must make sure you gett all the food and waste from the tank into them in order for them to be effective.From thier all the same rules apply. his size comment was basically if you have a 90 gallon tank and a refugium with a remote DSB it must be the same size as the tanks surface in order to be as good as one in the main.
Hmmm... Ron is basically saying that tier is now way to properly plumb a system and create water flow that will take the detritus out of the tank and deposit it in a remote dsb. I believe it is possible if you get creative (would I do it again...nope) but it can be done if someone really wanted a DSB in their system. I have a BB and I effectively remove it from the tank and to my skimmer, minute by minute day by day and so on. I just dont think he understands what we can do."The problems is that it is effectively impossible to get most of the detritus and excess food from the main tank to the remote one. The particulate food will lodge in and amongst the rocks, etc., and not get transferred. If that material doesn't make it to the bed, the organisms in beds starve and the bed loses functionality. The amount of water movement needed is really impossible to reach. Given the overcrowded nature of reef tanks plus the heterogeneity of the surfaces, there really is no way to efficiently flush the material to a remote DSB. If there were, it would work, but there ain't and it doesn't.
Originally posted by reefshadow
Wow, this thread is interesting.
I think i'm coming to the conclusion that if i have to maintain it to avoid a crash, I would rather not have it at all and instead rely on more water changes as needed. I have worked hard to make that quick and easy, and my monthly 25 gallon changes take me only 15 minutes. I could easily commit to doing double that.
LOL Tg. I believe Steve was making a point with Ron on his comments. The general gist of the thread was to make Dr. Ron admit that the DSB and its running was not as he sold it to the general public. And that much more maintenence and limitations were involved. Which Ron eventually conceded. The funnist thing about that whole thread was that Ron found a new way of making money off DSB's. Ron is now offering DSB coarses for a $ 175.00 a pop. thats why I didnt really want to envolve him in the talkMike, could you comment on these guidelines offered by SPC for maintaining DSBs?
stir away big dawgOriginally posted by Travis
Wow, some great information here and food for thought. I don't mind being a **** stirrer at all if this is the result.
this is a thinking hobby.
We did cover it a little Travis and you are dead on. The ammount is small when it comes to the critters in the bed however. A fish though will use an ammount (most experts ay around 10%). When you look at it in the sand be however you have to look at it differently. Example. You got a worm and it pounds away eating everyday, pooping but binding up material in it matrix. But when it dies it all goes back in, now relate this to all the other critter including bacteria, and bacteria can have a life span of only a few hours, so the trade off is actually negative??1. I keep hearing that the food put into the tank ALL stays there. Example, someone stated that 90% of the shrimp is pooped out by the fish, 10% "stays in" the fish. If that were the case, fish wouldn't eat. What I'm getting at is, what about ENERGY? Isn't energy a form of export? Animals consume food to turn it into the energy that allows them to stay alive, and this turning of food into energy certainly seems like export to me. So the 90% that gets pooped out by a fish, gets eaten by something else, which in turn uses (arbitrary number)10% for energy, poops out 81% of the original shrimp, and so on.... this was always my assumed "take" on the nutrient removing properties of a live sand bed (deep or not). Please enlighten me, is the amount used for energy actually so little as to be ignored in these discussions?
Boomer is a better one on this question, but in regards to the bed the problem is that the phophates are bound up right at the surface aand thus dont really get back into the water.2. A question about kalkwasser. It is generally accepted that dripping kalk causes phosphates to precipitate out of the water column. Can I assume that this precipitated phosphate winds up in the DSB? If so, what effect does this have? Would dripping kalk be considered helpful in reducing the phosphate accumulation of a sand bed, making it worse, or neither?
Well this could be a whole other topic in its self. most of the bacteria in te bed and thier spawn and such stay in te bed and wont be available to corals, plus most corals farm thier own. As per other crittr in the anerobic zone, yes they might prosper by some of this natural food. depending on the location of the corals to thier bed home. But a vaalid point.3. Finally, I have seen much talk about the usefulness of a DSB for filtration (correct or not)- nutrient cycling, denitrification. But let's not forget aobut the benefit of a DSB as a food source. All those benthic creatures living, dying, spawning, etc are a valuable source of zooplankton for our corals, and if this thinking is still correct, than I see it as a HUGE benefit for live sand beds.
Hmm yes and no. its really the same game. you still need to export in order to get rid of the stuff you need gone. A shallower bed will not allow for the accumulation of sulfide and so on, although if you dont flush it once and awhile it might. So same game just a littler easy to clean and maintain.Notice I've referred to live sand beds a couple of times. What are the consequences of adding say 1" of live sand to a tank versus a deep sand bed? Are we still looking at the same issues? Wouldn't nutrient accumulation and noxious gases be less of a threat? If I set my next tank up with an inch of live sand, would I be preserving the sand bed as a food source, biological filtration medium and esthetic quality while only sacrificing denitrification to eliminate the risks of a DSB?