sandbed

[BryanJ]

I am looking to put in a remote sandbed who has the sand we need southdown or old kastle? Has anyone seen any lately?

[kiowascout]

I saw somw silica based stuff at Home depot on taylor street.

I dont know if you are gung ho about using aragonite or not,so I thought that I would throw that out there for you.

[scooters reef]

For use in a remote sandbed, I don't think it really matters much. The added buffering capability would be too minor to make any difference.

[kiowascout]

I agree with you Scooter. Silica based is what I used. I bought it at lowes and it became live with time as all things do. Works great for me.

[scooters reef]

Well, even beyond that. If live means critters, then it's a refugium, not a remote sandbed. If live means bacteria, then either still works. A remote sandbed wouldn't have anything beyond bacteria in it anyway though.

[scooters reef]

Here's a LONG but interesting thread on doing it in a bucket :)

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

[RCS]

Added buffering capacity with aragonite is sort of a myth in the reefkeeping world anyway. I won't say it provides no buffering ability (as there's some evidence it does provide minute amounts of local buffering due to the processes taking place in a DSB), but its usefulness in that regard is mostly insignificant.

I've always used plain old silica sand strictly for the sake of cost. The grains never clump together either, which is possible with aragonite sands. There are so many different brands out there, even in a display tank you can choose any number of shades.

[BryanJ]

It is the refugium that I am considering adding it to.

[scooters reef]

Oh, well then you will find more opinions than there are people :( Even without buffering being taken into account (and I still don't think it does enough to measured) you may still want a particular grain size and shape. Depending on the volume you need though, I think I'd either go silica if a large amount, or just spend a little extra for a branded aragonite if the volume is small. Or a mix maybe.

[jandlms]

Scootersreef,
Is a remote sandbed not a refugium also as numerous copepods and other aquatic inverts colonize the sand. True, without adding suplemental lighting you will find it difficult to grow macroalgae, but plenty of other organisms will find "refuge" in a remote sandbed, have babies and contribute to the microscopic food for the corals in the display tank.

[BryanJ]

I think I am going to go for a mix of stuff. The top layer will be kent biosediment and the bottom will be something less expensive like the sand from home depot.

[scooters reef]

No, a remote sandbed is just that, nothing but a sandbed. There is no need for any inverts. But, even if covered and left in complete blackness I'd guess something may end up inhabiting the upper layer of sand. If the water flow over it is just strong enough though, I can't imagine many inverts settling in, and you really wouldn't want them too.

[RCS]

How technical do you want to get? Without any inverts in the sandbed (microfauna, crustaceans, bacteria, etc.) it will literally be just a sandbed, and there wouldn't be any purpose to having it.

A sandbed will be a wealth of production for all sorts of tiny life forms, not to mention the bacterial growth (both aerobic and anaerobic, depending on oxygen availability). While not a true refugium in the classic sense of the term, the reality is that there will be little to no predation going on in the remote sandbed and there will be a thriving abundance of life crawling over, through, in and from it.

[BryanJ]

I am already growing chaeto, just uping the anti with some sand. Some of my pods are so big I think they actually molted. lol

I have also decided to go with strictly kent biosediment. It may cost a little more but I really like what it has done for my 55 gallon tank.

[scooters reef]

RCS, I'm getting technical to the point of differentiating between a remote sand bed, and a refugium. Both serve different purposes and are very different. Your quote is correct " Without any inverts in the sandbed (microfauna, crustaceans, bacteria, etc.) it will literally be just a sandbed.." to that point, except there IS a point to having it, removal of nitrates. Otherwise, to say there is no point means you want a refugium (is all I have right now), and is a different animal serving other purposes as well.

I posted a link from Calfo's old forum with all the details, although many posted there with the same questions until answered by Anthony and others.

[jandlms]

There is no point scooter in having just a sand bed. A sand bed will do nothing for your nitrates. It is the bacteria in a healthy diversely populated sand bed that do the nitrate reduction.

[scooters reef]

That is primarily nitrite reduction, not nitrate reduction. AND, I only have a DSB refugium myself. I'm not comparing what does, or doesn't, belong in a refugium. But, a remote sandbed IS different, DOES serve a purpose, and besides the link above, is referenced by Bob Fenner on his own site, have seen Randy Holmes Farly briefly discuss it. But, for myself, Anthony Calfo is all the reference I need to at least know it's different, even if not needed by all people or systems. Nitrates are reduced by anaerobic bacteria, and a refugium will seldomn be deep enough for much of it, and the fauna keeps things stirred up to reduce it further.

[jandlms]

I mistyped my last post. A box of sand remotely attached to your tank will do little for your tank unless it is :
1) Properly seeded with microfauna
2) Deep enough for nitrate reduction (or be part of a plenum system). Who really worries about nitrite production?

Not looking to get into an argument over the semantics of all of these postsabout refugia or DSBs. Just offering my advice to Bryan.

[scooters reef]

Well, Bryan is dealing with a refugium, so is different anyway. AND, is also no different than a DSB if he chosses to utilize that. The remote part, and if it has a use or not (you stated not) was my point. Also, I'm NOT saying anyone should follow one or the other, ignore one or the other, but that they are different things. Then, you stated it server no purpose otherwise. I don't use a remote sandbed, maybe never will, but didn't want anyone else to not see, look, read, etc, to know that it serving no purpose isn't really the case :)

And we ALL worry about nitrite reduction, we just all have rock that already does it, or a DSB in our display or refugium. Skimmers remove things before they even get that far. We are obviously past that, because it is easily reduced to nitrates. Removing nitrates is a different story. A remote sand bed is good for NOTHING except that. It is specialized, yet does work for those that need it and choose to employ it.

But, I HOPE you don't think I'm arguing remote DSB vs. a refugium vs. in tank DSB, as they are different and have nothing to do with each other. A remote sand bed is NOTHING but a differnt take ont the old coil denitrators, except easier to maintain.

[jandlms]

Nope sorry. Don't worry about nitrite. Don't test for nitrite. Haven't for 14 years of reefkeeping. Yes, I keep liverock and undoubtedly it does its job cause I don't worry about nitrite. Sorry if you do.

[scooters reef]

Nevermind. You obviously choose not to read either the link, or what I stated. I didn't say I had to test for nitrites. I said we are all concerned about nitrite reduction, but now have rock, etc to handle it for us. To turn that around, I have no detectable nitrates, so if you have to test for it, then I'm sorry too :)

Or, if nitrite reduction isn't a concern, take out all your rock and everything else you have that may be helping, THEN worry about it. That would be dumb. So, if it's right to rely on a natural process to reduce nitrites, why discard a means of reducing nitrates? Or, to lump them into one definition that amounts to a refugium, when the term was coined for the express reason of NOT being confused with that?

I'm not saying it's has a place in all systems, or even that all should agree it works. I DO have an issue with it being twisted so anybody else interested has no clue what it's even about. Lump it in with sugar or vodka dosing if you want, but it different than a refugium, AND well covered in many publications recently. I tried a Google search and found more references that I even thought I'd find.

[RCS]

I don't worry about nitrite either, generally, but it's definitely an integral part of the nitrification process! Without nitrite being processed into something (normally nitrate during nitrification), we'd all have some serious problems. Albeit nitrite is usually less of a problem in a marine tank, it can still be a problem.

The denitrification process is done by bacteria and microbes as well, which are still invertebrates. ;)

I'm just being nitpicky is all. A DSB in a tank, refugium or remote will all have similar qualities to them, and if done right, all should aid in nitrate reduction. Granted, the ultimate goal of a refugium may be to propagate the fauna that a tank generall feeds on, but technically speaking a refugium is a place that is a "refuge", no DSB needed or required if other needs are met; it's simply an area with no predation on the inhabitants. My refugium in my old 155 bow was a 20g Rubbermaid with a wad of chaeto and a sponge. The 'pods and mysids that came out of that thing was amazing to behold. Heck, some hair algae I had growing inside my overflows housed an awesome amount of 'pods. :D

If you're planning on using a remote DSB for the ultimate purpose of denitrification, you better hope there is invertebrate life growing in there, otherwise it's really just a sandbox with no purpose. :lol:

[RCS]

LOL, I think we're taking this way too seriously.

Scooter, I agree with you. My only point was that invertebrate life makes denitrification possible, and you'll get that in a proper DSB any way you slice it.

It's good to discuss things like this though, as it can help people reading it (or confuse the heck out of them...). Heck, to be honest, I rarely, if ever, test for anything other than Ca. Sometimes Mg...ammonia, nitrite, nitrate? Nope. pH, alkalinity? Nope. Certainly not things like Iodine and Phosphates.

[scooters reef]

LOL, Sorry RCS, wasn't you I was referring to :) You made a comment, and I took it only that you were referring to a DSB in a refugium or main tank, and read nothing else into it and was hardly offended.

But, for YOU I'd still like to disagree on a more friendly basis that a sand bed IS still effective with no fauna if set up correctly, is even easier to maintain, yet in exchange has no other benefit beyond denitrification where DSB does. LOL, hopefully I'll never need it, but if that's the ONLY desired result, why would any fauna help at all? If anything, it would only extend how far down oxygen will go and is what you wouldn't want.

[jandlms]

Thanks Fred. I agree that some (even myself at times) take their views way too seriously.. We all just need to learn to recognize the signs. As for twisting meanings and definitions well, I'll let my MSc in aquatic sciences continue to keep my tank percolating along nicely.
Speaking of testing (or lack of it) what are you testing with for Calcium (brand name?)?

[jandlms]

My only disagreement with your premise is that you stated earlier that a sand bed is just that no inverts are needed. My argument (probably poorly stated) is that even the remotest sandbed is going to get and have a tremendous population of inverts (Not even counting the bacteria) which wwill in the long run be a beneficial source of food for Bryan's tank.
As for "YOU".
My name is Jon. My screen name is jandlms. Feel free to use either. it makes me feel special.

[scooters reef]

LOL

Ok, sorry Jon. Was trying to make it clear to RCS I wasn't responding to him, since he thought I was, so saw no reason to specify further. Didn't mean to go so far as to offend just because I felt so, but most obviously did.

As for your point, I agree, in most typical applications because it has to serve multiple purposes. I also said ANYONE could disagree if it would work or not otherwise, so feel free. Even better in fact. It was what I took as snide responses that irritated me. If I mistook them, then my apologies.

As for the premise that sand can't result in NNR without any inverts, have you read the link yet? Just for a basis of comparison. Not that he is always right, but I tend to listen to Calfo in most cases. The thread is a mess though, so I warn you, plan on a long time to read it all. You will also find many posting asking about what you are stating.

I think what 99% of it breaks down to is, a confusion due to lack of established terminology (Like, what exactly IS a RDSB, as opposed to a DSB, or refugium) and what the goal is. Even if Anthony Calfo is correct, the RDSB is useless for anything but NNR, so pointless for someone that wants that along with a full refuguim, has the space, and wants the other benefits to use it.
We also already established what Bryan is doing, what he needed, and I'm pretty sure were all almost 100% in agreement.

Otherwise, I'll try to make you feel special from now on :)

[jandlms]

No trust me there will be no doubt when I attempt to be snide.
As for Calfo's work, I agree with most of it and in general he could use a good assistant to clean up some of his work. It is tedious at times to pour through it all. I much more enjoy reading his books where an editor has gone through much of the writing before it hits the general public. Calfo knows what he wants to get across to us but I think he has a tough time getting/talking down to my level (somewhere between knuckle dragger and copepod).
Godd night y'all. Time for bed.