Put the gloves on and let's talk DSB.

[reefshadow]

Wow, this thread is interesting.

I guess i'm still a bit stuck on the fact that when I got into this hobby the current thinking was that a dsb was a "set it and forget it" type of philosophy. As in no syphoning, no disturbing, no messing w/ it at all, no sifting organisms like cukes and stars.

I have to say that i'm totally w/ Maxx on this one. This hobby is already spendy and time consuming enough. I am not very enthused about the idea of having to syphon and replace sections, add detrivore kits and so on ad infinitum. On top of the religious water changes, testing, feeding and all that I already do for it.

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.

I'm not sure why having a remote sand bed would pose a problem as far as getting detritus to it. If I had only the dsb in my fuge and none in the display, I could easily add enough flow to the display to keep detritus in suspension long enough to carry it through the overflow to the dsb in the fuge.

So for those commiting to more dsb maintenence, how deep do you syphon? I thought it was highly undesirable to disturb the anaerobic zones that complete the nitrifying process.

I guess i'm more than willing to accept new standards for reefkeeping (this is an evolving hobby after all), but I don't think I really want to do all that extra work.

Yikes! I think I just talked myself into removing my dsb.

[tankgirl]

Hi reefshadow! Nice to see you! Re; your comments and Maxx's -

Yeah! One of the things I really hate is that the DSB was promoted as an easy, low-maintainance method. Now, because we followed that advice, people like Dr. Shimek are saying our DSBs don't work because of our poor husbandry. What seems to be evolving is a very high maintainance program to keep them healthy.

jimeluiz, Hi! I'm sorry I don't know the answer to your question. At one time, sand-sifting stars were considered bad for a DSB because they predate (eat) the good inhabitants in the SB.

Hi Mike, sheesh! I can't believe Dr. Shimek has changed his mind again - that thread (where he said remote DSBs can't work) is only a month old!!!

[Scooterman]

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.

I can't say it better
Water changes are rather easy as compared to Maintaining a DSB but hey That is just Me!

[mojoreef]

JImi the concept is as TG says the star eats the bugs and thus they dont stir the bed, thus you dont get the migration you need to transfer food sown and gas up

Its not all bad news for DSB's. They do provide great denitrification. They are a good source of microscopic food. And to be hones they do look better then BB IMHO. But as with everything else in this hobby they require maintenence in order to make them work and function as they were meant to. In regard to toxic metal build ups as pointed out by ROn I believe that is totally untrue and I have many referenced srticles proving it. I also believe that a total crash of a DSB is something that take a good ammount of time and is alot more rare then most folks believe. The main problem that does folks in is the phosphates. The endless algae battles are demoralizing. But this can be put off by good maintenence.
Everything we do in oour tanks is always about exporting. We use Skimmers, refugiums, macro algae, uv's, and so on and so on. A dsb must be concidered in the same group and be treated the same way. As it sits alone it is a filter that relies on a series of Biochemical cycles and will export nitrogen based products. With human intervention (maintenence) you can solve some of the issues with the bed filter.

They are tanks where a DSB can work with out a lot of issues. Rob Toonan's tank was a prime example. It was a low flow, low bioload (2 fish I believe) and supported corals (mushroom and a few other softies) that are more resistant and actually perfer nutrient rich waters. His DSB lasted 11 years. I beleive this type of tank is closest to what we would call a lagoonal type system. So if one wants to keep a tank mimicing this type of eneviroment a DSB could be very viable.

anyway thats how I see it.

Mike

[tankgirl]

Mike, could you comment on these guidelines offered by SPC for maintaining DSBs?
---
SPC:
If we go by the DSB recipe, then we should:
1. Never vacuum the sand bed. There are a few reasons for this if memory serves me (I have the same problem as you Zoom ).
A) You will disturb the anaerobic zone.
B) You will syphon out the critters (that you paid $100 for ).
C. There is no need to, a DSB is self supporting as long as you follow the recipe.
2. The next thing we must make sure of is that we feed the sand bed critters. If you don't keep the critters happy, then they will perish and your DSB will fail.
How much do we feed? Just enough to keep them happy.
3. Restock DSB critters every year or so (and introduce flat worms at the same time, sorry ).
4. Do not siphon any detritus out of tank, leave this for food for the DSB bugs, corals, etc...
5. Do not under any circumstances remove the silt from the sand, this is the environment that many (most?) of the bugs like. Always use as fine a sand as you can find.
6. 4 to 6" minumum sand depth, the deeper the better.
---

[Scooterman]

Not sure deeper is better!

[mojoreef]

Mike, could you comment on these guidelines offered by SPC for maintaining DSBs?

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 talk


Mike

[Travis]

Wow, some great information here and food for thought. I don't mind being a **** stirrer at all if this is the result.

So to stir some more...A few questions come to mind, a little "deeper thinking" of my own:

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?

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?

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.

4. 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?

5. Finally, a point. This hobby is about informed decision-making of us all as individual hobbyists. The moment you start blindly following ANY advice without first understanding it and doing some critical thinking fo your own, it's no longer a hobby but just an excercise. This isn't pointed at anyone giving advice here, lord knows without the advice of others I'd be in big trouble as we all would. Just trying to remind everyone, this is a thinking hobby.

Travis

[Witfull]

Originally 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.

stir away big dawg

this is a thinking hobby.

thats why we are here, isn't it?

[mojoreef]

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?

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??

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.
This thread is not really meant to be advice, its just a conversation, on what a dsb does and doesnt do, and some points by members that have had luck doing different things to keep it going. We havent gotten into this method is better or this one is worse. IMHO all system comes with catches and work and we should probibly do another thread like this one on diferent systems. The whole idea here is for folks to understand what this filtration system is capable of doing and not capable of doing, then some ideas on how to make it last longer or work more effectively.

Mike

[Boomer]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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.

quote:

Yes Mike but they are still there and some algaes like cyano can use it as "food source"

Phosphate Issues

http://www.animalnetwork.com/fish/li...&RecordNo=2481

[Reef Geek]

I am very much liking this thread so far. Lots of information here!!
I remember last January when I started my tank the LFS told me about live sand and innoscent me went along with it. At that time I did not know there were other options available othere than a DSB. Recently I have discovered plenums, bare bottom, starboard and the different combinations thereof. As for what I plan on doing in my next system? I dont know.

My thoughts so far:

I agree that remote sandbeds (unless equal in size, length x width, to the display tank) will always be less efficient than a DSB in the display. An increase in depth will not increase the processing capability. You cant do a 180G bare bottom display with a 50G fuge w/ DSB and expect it to be as efficient as a 180G display w/ DSB. That is simple math.

Speaking of plenums. Wouldnt a plenum have the same problems as a DSB, no/minimal transport out of the system? Can someone please explain how a plenum works on both a physical construction & installation layer (how it works) and on the chemical layer (why it works)?

[Boomer]

Mike, go read the latest ideas on crashed reef tanks

http://reefcentral.com/forums/showth...hreadid=278112

[Travis]

LOL that's the guy I was referring to in post #1 of this thread.

T

[mojoreef]

Oh man thats a drag Steves a good guy and had a nice tank. Hopefully we find out what happened.

Mike