(RDSB)Remote Deep Sand Bed questions.

[Western_reefer]

I have a few questions about (RDSB)Remote Deep Sand Beds. So, here they are: I'm thinking about making a remote deep sandbed, its going to be big enough to hold around 1 ton (2,000-2,500 lb) of sand. The dimensions are: 57" long x 32" long x 50" high I'm going to build it out of plywood/2x4/4x4 and epoxy the inside so it can be waterproof and then plant several mangroves. The sand bed itself is going to be around 30 inches deep and its going to be hooked up to my 180 gallon reef. What are your thoughts? How long will the sandbest last? Thanks in advance!!

[salt210]

why have you decided so big?

[Western_reefer]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15361363#post15361363 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by salt210
why have you decided so big?
Its better and more filtration? lol

[FranktheTankTx]

Interesting. I say big waste of money - but oh well, to each his own.

[Western_reefer]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15366180#post15366180 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by FranktheTankTx
Interesting. I say big waste of money - but oh well, to each his own.
Whys that?

[NexDog]

Get the sand from the coast and you cut down a huge cost. I've always wanted to do one but never had the space. Mine would have to be outside which would also mean I'd have to construct some kind of cover.

[FranktheTankTx]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15366379#post15366379 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Western_reefer
Whys that?
Oh I don't know - 1 ton of sand... LMAO!!

[Western_reefer]

I'm getting the sand for free....(I have my resources, don't worry ;))

[SWSaltwater]

You wont get much more performance then a 5 gallon bucket full on a 180 IMO, and it will be a pain to clean(usually never needed if you drop some mussels and nass snails, and other sifters in it). Combine a 5 gallon DSB with a small fluidized sand bed and you would kick the poop out of amonia, nitrite, and nitrates.......

[gorey]

Would it be eaiser to just get a old 55g or 40g long instead of building a tank? You can usually get these pertty cheap. They have new 40g longs at a place by my house for $42. That way you don't have to build it. The price of lumber is very expensive as well as epoxy. Also it seems that these plywood tanks are kinda hard to build right. It can be done, and has been done many times but it seems like alot of people also don't ever finish them, Or they don't really know how much work its going to take. Just my 2 cent.........Good luck with what ever you do keep us posted with lots of pictures!!!

[noboddi]

Waste of space. A few years ago Calfo had wrote an article (Coral mag I think) and all you need is a 5 gallon bucket per 200 gallons in an RDSB. You can add more sand but it won't add more filtration

[drdoolittle]

Interesting; I say go for it. I always wanted to try it. I use to run Jaubert system of filtration. I had a 1.5 inch plenum and about 4-5 inches of live sand over it. I ran that system for about 4 year before breaking it down. I had good result on lowering nitrate naturally. But, im not sure how long it will tank before the sand bed is completely exhausted.

i say try it out and let us know about your results.

[Western_reefer]

I decided to go with a 65 gallon(36" long x 25" wide x 18" high) instead and fill it up about 9-10 inches or so with sand and plant some mangroves. Thanks for all the info/help everyone! I'll post pictures when its up and running.

[noboddi]

Anthony Calfo has kept RDSBs longer than 10 years without them crashing. He has written several articles on the subject, and he states that a RDSB is easier and less headache than one in a tank.

I have never done an RDSB myself, just DSBs.

[Western_reefer]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15375466#post15375466 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by noboddi
Anthony Calfo has kept RDSBs longer than 10 years without them crashing. He has written several articles on the subject, and he states that a RDSB is easier and less headache than one in a tank.

I have never done an RDSB myself, just DSBs.
Can you give me a link to his article(s) please?

[noboddi]

Its in a back issue of Coral Magazine. Don't think its online. They devoted an issue to deep sand beds a in the Oct 2007 issue.

I just moved and mine is in a box somewhere so I can't put my hands on it

[nicks387]

Good luck, will you have any type of sand bed in the tank itself?
Also, is that you in your avitar? Just kidding.
I hope its not your daughter LOL

[madean]

I think i remember seeing that the rdsb needs to be covered, no light which would be hard to grow mangroves without light. According to calfo if im not mistaken you will get better results with a 5 gallon bucket and about 60 lbs of sand. The finner the better, and covered. Also if possible the water is post skimmer, bio and chemically filtered.

[law086]

I'd be curious to know why a RDSB would perform better when covered. Any reference reading would be appreciated.

[madean]

according to calfo's book- "all substrates under bright reef illumination will require some sort of detritavore or manual sand-stirring (weekly, minimum)... preventing the accumulation of diatoms, algae and other nuisance growths.

The whole point of his RDSB is to just have a bucket of sand with just enough water flowing over the top of the sand to not disturb the sand and yet not let anything accumulate on the sand. There is no water pumping through the sand like a fluidized sand filter, just across the top of the sand. When you start adding mangroves or macro it will slow the flow of the water and create dead spots for detritus or other matter to accumulate, thus ruining the goal of the bucket in the first place. If you can find >.5mm or .5mm sand that is ideal and if you want the added benefit of buffering, get the aragonite type of sand.
So to answer the quesition lights equals possible nuisance growth and we dont want that. The point that makes this work is good and smart flow. No good flow and the RDSB does not work. IMO

[tufacody]

I'd be worried about the smell. This really seems like overkill.

[madean]

This method of RDSB, the 5 gal bucket with sand, is suppose to be simple. So keep it simple and if it needs to be removed it can be removed with out jepordizing the system. The RDSB is not meant to be the main source of filtration. Its sole purpose is to just reduce accumulated nitrates and maybe aid in some buffering capability. Now if you want to have mangroves, set up a tank for the mangroves and call it a mangrove garden. You might get the benefits of a RDSB and you might not. You really wont know if the bacteria in the sand is consuming the nitrates or the mangroves. Thus not really knowing if the RDSB is working or not, plus you will have to maintain: 1algae scrubbing, 2 detritus syphoning, 3 and the mangroves, 4 cleaner animals. The purpose IMO is to basically add a bucket full of sand and a pump, post filtered water ( to reduce the chances of materials accumulating in the bucket) and enjoy the benefits if natural nitrate reduction.

[Western_reefer]

Good luck, will you have any type of sand bed in the tank itself?
Also, is that you in your avitar? Just kidding.
I hope its not your daughter LOL

Thanks! Yup, I will have a sand bed in the tank.
LOL No, and no. :p Her name is Ashley Gellar. :)

[FishyBiz]

Thanks! Yup, I will have a sand bed in the tank.
LOL No, and no. :p Her name is Ashley Gellar. :)

Hmmmm. I found some great avatar pics of her but they may be inappropriate.....:spin2:
Im gonna do some more searching...... on RDSB's of course. :strange:

[Western_reefer]

Hmmmm. I found some great avatar pics of her but they may be inappropriate.....:spin2:
Im gonna do some more searching...... on RDSB's of course. :strange:

lol Yeah...

[madean]

inappropriate yes but very nice :eek1:

[henrystyle]

Here is an excellent read on deep sand beds. You guys are missing out on another bonus of a dsb. It can also supply your reef tank with unlimited food. This is the purpose placing it after the skimmer or whatever mechanical filtration that you may have so all the micro fauna-plankton, pods can return to the tank through the return pump. (another reason why I do not use filter socks)

http://www.reef-eden.net/DSBs.htm
http://www.ronshimek.com/deep_sand_beds.html

4-6 inches high is all you need.....To the person who started this thread, your original and 2nd plan is way overkill. Such a huge DSB is not needed....Mangroves aren't needed either. Mangroves need light. With lights on all the nocturnal critters will not come out..These critters like to feed and multiply in the darkness.
With a properly seeded sand bed the critters will take care of all the sand stirring. I never read anything about a DSB having to be covered. Dont see the purpose in doing that. Don't worry about Detritus collecting on the DSB. Thats what the critters are for....The article above is truly a good read....

read up...

[madean]

henrystyle thank you for the article- it was very informative on a what a DSB is and how it acts. It gives great illustrations on what goes on in a DSB. Unfortunately there is only a small paragraph in the first article about a RDSB which is what westernreefer proposed in the first place to talk about. But westernreefer i think is confusing a dsb with a rdsb which run and react differently and trying to get both benefits by conbining them. A dsb which has critters eating semi large and small organic matter, stirring the sand ect (read the first article, it explains this well) acts differnetly then a rdsb. You want slower water running over this sand bed. You want some of the organic matter to fall on the sand to feed the critters. In a rdsb-well lets stop calling it rdsb for the sake of this conversation, and lets call it the bucket method. You can take the sand out of your display and put it into another tank to be filled to 4-6", and technically it can be called a rdsb. But basically you are attaching two tanks together for added filtration. Most of the research that I have conducted on this topic yields that when you type in "RDSB" in a search engine the bucket method pops up. The bucket method is preferably taking a 5 gallon bucket (square being easier to attach a bulkhead to) and filling it with 40-60 lbs of sand and running water across the top at a rate that solids stay suspended and DO NOT settle. This method relies on bacteria and not critters to reduce nitrates. THIS IS DIRECTLY FROM THE ARTICLE
3. The difference between normal DSB's and BUCKET DSB's...Do 'NOT' confuse the two, they are very different beasts. A bucket DSB is a 'chemical' filter that works solely on the principle of breaking down dissolved nutrients such as Ammonia, Nitrite and Nitrate to free nitrogen gas and extremely fine organic matter that is too small to be mechanically filtered from the incoming water column. It does not rely on a critter population to handle solid matter and keep the bed loose. In the case of bucket DSB's, the bed is run remotely from the main sump system in a separate container or tank and is fed only pre-filtered water that has had the vast majority of solid particulates removed. Usually by way of a 5micron filter sock or other such fine filter material on the input side. The main aim here is to let the bed function at a bacterial level, allowing it to work chemically without the hindrance of dealing with solid matter breakdown. The filtering effectively stops particulates entering the area which would otherwise clog the bed over time without the presence of a critter population to deal with it. It has commonly been the case that people confuse these two methods and start applying the rules of one to the other. The simple fact is that you cant have your cake and eat it all the time. Suddenly cutting off the supply of solid food to an existing critter based DSB will probably herald disastrous results as the critter population starves and dies back leaving the bed clogged with dead or decaying matter and no way of dealing with it. whereas a Bucket DSB based system relies on diverting solid matter handling to alternate routes, such as the filter on the input, and more reliance on heavy skimming to take up the surplus. Neither method is wrong, nor right, They simply work in different ways and should be treated as such.
Sorry this is so long but I think each person needs to decide which route they would like to go to achieve a certain goal. Dont confuse the two and try not to infuse them together. Again henrystyle thank you for posting a great article, which illistrates the differnces of the two set ups.

[henrystyle]

In my opinion I prefer the critter based DSB...Theres just to many bonuses with that method. Both methods are similar. The big difference is that 1 has critters and the other doesn't. I plan on adding a DSB to my future tank plans....To me it just makes to much sense. A small dsb can service a large tank..

[madean]

probably more benefits to the dsb compared to the rdsb, but also depends on your application. For me, the rdsb suites me better. I have a BB frag tank and limited room where the bucket style rdsb will IMO work better for me. Just depends on what your setting up and what you have to work with.

[henrystyle]

probably more benefits to the dsb compared to the rdsb, but also depends on your application. For me, the rdsb suites me better. I have a BB frag tank and limited room where the bucket style rdsb will IMO work better for me. Just depends on what your setting up and what you have to work with.
I hear ya. I plan on putting mine in a nice size sump. Thinking of plumbing the overflow directly into the skimmer. Logic being all of the water will get skimmed, not just some water from the sump...Water will flow over the dsb right to the return pump... A little carbon/GFO reactor, calcium reactor and thats it....Keeping it simple.

[madean]

sounds good to me

[moondoggy4]

tagging along great read so far

[aquainas]

I hear ya. I plan on putting mine in a nice size sump. Thinking of plumbing the overflow directly into the skimmer. Logic being all of the water will get skimmed, not just some water from the sump...Water will flow over the dsb right to the return pump... A little carbon/GFO reactor, calcium reactor and thats it....Keeping it simple.

I have done exactly this and I believe it's the way to go click the link to my build thread if you'd like to see a pic:http://reefcentral.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15808907&postcount=337

[henrystyle]

I have done exactly this and I believe it's the way to go click the link to my build thread if you'd like to see a pic:http://reefcentral.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15808907&postcount=337
Thats a bad *** setup you have there. What size is your overflow line going into the skimmer? 1/2", 3/4", 1"?

[SkyPapa]

I run a RDSB in a IO bucket with play sand from HD. It is fed from the sump by a magnum 350 with carbon.
It has been going for about 5 years with no maintenance.
My NO3 runs 1-2 ppm.
I still have my share of algaes.

[madean]

Thank you for posting your experience. I keep going back and forth on which style to do. I cut a 100 gallon tank horizontally in half and I am using it as a sump. I then divided the new tank in half to be filters for two different tanks. The stand was built to accomodate 2 3' x 3' frag tanks. The idea was to have two seperate filters so that I would not have to deal with the chemical warfare hindering growth of different types of corals. But now wondering if to combine the filter as one and have a large 30" x 18" dsb to grow goodies to help possibly feed the coral and reduce the nitrates. Decisions decisions.

[madean]

Skypapa- have u tested your phosphate level to see if your share of "algaes" is a spawn of the level of phosphates in the tank.

[SkyPapa]

Skypapa- have u tested your phosphate level to see if your share of "algaes" is a spawn of the level of phosphates in the tank.

Yep, phosphates are undetectable on my salifert kit.
That means the phos is less than about .003 and some is locked in the algae.
I manually remove what i can and run gfo.
I don't really have hair algae but I can barely keep up with the different types of bubble algae.

Yea, I know, emerald crabs. They help some. My foxface eats some too.

[henrystyle]

Anyone know how to calculate the size of a RDSB in relation to tank size? I am building a 120 gallon tank. 48x24x24. I am currently trying to design my sump as well. I would like to know how much space is needed for the RDSB section I am putting in my sump for it to be beneficial to my tank. I know the depth needed. Trying to figure out the L and W that it should be. (really just the length)

[Western_reefer]

Anyone know how to calculate the size of a RDSB in relation to tank size? I am building a 120 gallon tank. 48x24x24. I am currently trying to design my sump as well. I would like to know how much space is needed for the RDSB section I am putting in my sump for it to be beneficial to my tank. I know the depth needed. Trying to figure out the L and W that it should be. (really just the length)

Just use a 5 gallon bucket hooked up to your sump? Its much easier to take out if needed.

[henrystyle]

No room for a 5 gallon bucket..Gotta incorporate it into the sump design..

[foreverreef]

wait how much flow do you have into the bucket? and is there a pic of how you have it plumbed? does the water just run over the top of the sand? or is there 4-5" of water on the sand and then flows off? sorry for the questions it that i am interested in this but i really canot grasp this concept in my mind..

[bergzy]

here is the ongoing thread on remote dsb's in advanced topics:

part I:
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=595109

Part II:
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=896352

[bergzy]

here is the start of the ongoing conversation of remote dsb's:

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=595109