DSB in a bucket for nitrate control

[Bill Shultz]

I've been absent from the thread for a while but I wanted to post some updates on my system/progress.

People follwing this thread may remember seeing some of my posts on page seven.

First off, I was unhappy with the progress I was making so I decided to add another RDSB into my loop. The addition is the gray 10 gallon bucket which is probably holding about 50+ lbs of play sand at a depth of ~10 inches.

[rustybucket145]

Paul,

thanks for the link, very useful information provided by Anthony.

That is exactly what I plan on doing, (30 gal tank w/ DSB and mangrove environment) my sunroom is climate controlled with a greenhouse roof (see through plastic) and windows floor to ceiling on three of four walls. I will be plumbing the tank directly into my existing sump on my system. Can you guys think of any issues or problems that i may run into? I am assuming that the natural sunlight provided by my sunroom will be sufficient for the mangroves? I will be using a sand/aragonite/biosediment mix for the substrate which will be about 12"-14" in depth. I'm not sure what kind of water turnover rate I will have but it will be adjustable so I'm guessing the more the better with the sand/mud being the deciding factor?

As far as wildlife goes does anyone have any suggestions? I had planned on a mix of snails/hermit crabs. I would be interested in any species of fish that would live (naturally) in the mangrove environment. I have done some research on this but I'm not sure which fish are aquarium friendly. Anthony mentioned the upside down jelly fish has anyone ever had experience with these? I plan on doing a photo journal on this set-up and hopefully I will get started next weekend!!!

[Bill Shultz]

Back in 11.05.05 my nitrates were reading 50+ and this was what I was dealing with:





You can check my gallery for more pics but I think these should suffice for what was going on. The GHA was thick, nasty, green/purple and would grow back to full strength within a week or two after being aggressively cleaned with a tooth brush.

Currently I'm about 2 months into the battle (a battle I'm now fighting with my two RDSBs) and these are some pictures taken from today. As you can see the GHA is not completely gone, but much much improved. My current nitrate reading is 7ppm using the salifert test kit.



To be fair, I must say that in addition to some massive water changes I also scoured the tank with a tooth brush to get it this way. I can tell that the GHA is still there, but it's growth is markedly slowed and I'd like to believe that the tank is turning the corner. It has maintained this "look" for about a week so far.

One additional change that I've made, and I'd like people to be aware of is that I'm now using a RO/DI setup to make all of my new salt water. I was NOT using RO/DI water previously and I'd like to really emphasize to anyone wrestling with the whole nitrate/water quality/GHA issue that this is ESSENTIAL and I'd encourage people to make this improvement in their husbandry techniques ASAP.

[kramer1]

Hello,

I had a question regarding use of the garbage can or large vessel setup. What would be the correct way to go about changing out some of the sand to replace with new when needed. As I am reading this should be done to keep the system up to snuff on a yearly basis. This obviously is a different situation than a multiple bucket setup. If you disturb a single unit setup would it kill all the anerobic affects of the dsb. How would you go about this to not shock the system.

thanks for the help,
Rich

[Spuds725]

Thanks for the update Bill-- I can't recommend RO/DI enough-- I was using RO only up until last summer, switching to RO/DI made a big difference in my tank.

I've been following this thread for a while so I think I can answer some of the recent questions-- anyone feel free to correct me...

@ Rusty-- I don't think this is the proper section to ask about a mangrove refugium-- if Anthony does check this thread he would likely be able to answer that.

He (Anthony) did write an article that someone linked to on the previous page of this thread that you might find helpful... http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/20...ture/index.php

@KH971 -- I don't think it will be too detrimental for the RDSB to get light-- I think the idea is to NOT make it a live sand bed-- absence of light should aid in critters not taking up residence-- as well as any nuisance algaes that might start growing and providing habitat... I don't believe it is absolutely necessary for it to be dark, but I believe that was the idea of covering it.. For sand depth, the deeper the better IMO. For sand grain size... you want fine sand-- oolitic/sugar grade... I believe Anthony recommended 0.2 to 0.5 mm grain size.

@Kramer-- The beauty of this method is its portability-- easy to remove and replace. I'm not sure of the necessity to replace it after a certain period of time-- what exactly is supposed to be occuring that would necessitate it??? Remember this is not designed to be a Live sand bed... the issues or a DSB (in tank) crashing is a result of too much detritus accumulating and/or accompanied by the loss of biodiversity of detrivores in the sand bed. Since the RDSB is purely bacterial, the possibility of a crash is likely less...

But irregardless, this is what I would do to replace it (to minimize any "shock")... I would start a 2nd RDSB--in series before or after the existing one... let it go for a month or two to let it start taking up some of the "load" from the other one. THen to prevent any big shock you could either start removing sand from the existing one (about 1/5 of the volume per week or so)..... alternately just remove it entirely--I don't think you would see a serious nitrate spike-- but if you do, it should be short lived.

HTH...

I'm by far not an expert so anyone please correct me if I put out any bad/incorrect info... some of this is my opinion based on what I've read here and other places..

[eshook]

KH971,

The RDSB can receive light. The only reason why you would want to keep it dark is to stop algae from growing. If you provide light, algae will grow in the SB. So if you wanted an easier time keep it dark.

As for depth we are trying to learn what the best dimensions are. A 5 gallon bucket seems to be the "default" although many people have tried different containers. I think no matter what container you use (assuming it holds enough sand) will be beneficial.

Feel free to go greater than 8 inches. We are just not sure if there is a "maximum beneficial depth" but I think it would be more toward the 12" range than anything. Who knows maybe its not until 36" or more... We need to test more. So I would personall suggest go ahead with any plans you have and tell us your results!

My my $0.01 (after taxes)
eshook

[eshook]

Sorry spuds, I had this half typed out, left and came back and by that time you already answered the question ... sorry for the multiple information.

[rustybucket145]

@ Spuds-- I think if you read back a few posts you will see that I am not just setting up a mangrove refugium. It will be a 'RSDB' that (because of space reasons) will have to sit in the open. So instead of having a 5gal bucket sitting in my sunroom I thought a fish tank with 12" of sand/mud/aragonite and some mangroves would look much better. Just thought some other people that may have space concerns would like to hear about what I was doing. If I perhaps got off topic I apologize to everyone.

Oh, and I previously read the article. It was very informative. Thank you for putting the link back up for others that may be interested in this.

[Bill Shultz]

Hey Spuds725 (or anyone else that might know),

I was wondering if anyone knows what Anthony's take on the whole "cooking" live rock issue is. I've been searching the threads and although some were started in his Forums I can't seem to find if he has weighed in on the issue yet.

Please don't get this confused with an attempt to lead this thread in a new direction. . . I was just wondering if anyone's heard from Anth on this and could provide me a link, etc.

Thanks.

[Scyphozoan]

Damn thread took 2 days to read Some great stuff tho,Im going to have to give it a shot.

[Spuds725]

Rusty-- thats not exactly a RDSB but it will probably look cool-- hope to see a pic of it some day.. I don't think it necessary to apologize-- refering you elsewhere was more to get you help or suggestions and your questions answered.. I'm pretty sure most of the people coming here are fighting nitrates and probably not the best to advise you on growing mangroves or setting up a mangrove fuge... at least not me anyway..

Bill-- I haven't read any comment that anthony may have made regarding cooking rock... I don't have an opinion on the subject... while I do suffer from high nitrates, mine is almost all in the water... I don't have a hair algae or cyano problems.

[captbunzo]

Read the thread....

[prezioso73]

Bill-

Awsome results!

I am seeing similar results, but it really didn't start until I took out my 1-2 in. sand bed.

Hair Algae is the DEVIL!

[Bill Shultz]

Prezioso73,

I haven't made the switch to BB but a while back I dropped my Sand bed to about 1/2" max depth. That change alone didn't seem to help the tank much, but I'm sure that the extra CC wasn't doing me any good.

Did you go completely BB?

[REEF-DADDY]

I just set my RDSB up with a 20 gallon brute and about 200 lbs of sand. 2 questions:

1. My lid fits pretty tight, any need for air holes?

2. My ca reactor is on its way. My tank already suffers from low. Aside from the possibility of clumping, and reason not to plumb the effluent from my reactor into the RDSB? It would act like a second chamber and allow any c02 to escape before the sump.

[mmmmsushi]

someone correct me if I'm wrong but you actually want oxygen running through the RDSB. The nitrating bacteria use the O2 to create nitrates which are then broken down by the denitrating bacteria.

That and the effluent would eventually disolve the sand in the RDSB provided it's not silica. You would periodically have to add sand to it, thus making the RDSB even less effective.

[prezioso73]

Bill-
I removed about 98% of my sand. All that remains is what is under some of the rocks and a little patch for a goby.

[Daemonfly]

Been following this thread for a while and I understand the basic workings of a RDSB with only flow on the top of the bucket. Don't think I missed anything, but it is a big thread

I'm trying to get an understanding of the pros/cons of the flow-through version though. I know you'd need the proper low flow, as well as proper depth for it too work properly. But can you have it too deep? Also, I know the water comming out isn't too healthy, but what if it was then fed into a re-gassing tower? Example here: http://www.tmc-ltd.co.uk/commercial/bio-tower.asp

Also, what if you pumped in fresh air into that re-gasser with an airpump? I'd guess this would help remove any outgassed nitrogen, etc.. from the water faster. If it had a bit of a smell from the RDSB functions, then could just pop on a carbon filter like the ones we use on Skimmer collection containers. I know it may perform somewhat like a wet-dry, which have been argued back & forth as nitrate factories, etc.. but I think the RDSB would completely counteract this problem, plus the water entering it wouldn't have much left over for any nitrating bacteria to feed on anyway.

[Fred_J]

I don't think a flow through version would work. The water would basically be flowing through sand until there was virtually no oxygen in it. I'm with Anthony on this, it seems to defeat the purpose. It's the same as a DSB with an undergravel filter (of course at one time I thought the under gravel filter was an amazing invention).

Fred

[barryhc]

REEF-DADDY, No need to add air holes unless you are supplying the RDSB with oxygen starved water from another device.

Originally posted by mmmmsushi
someone correct me if I'm wrong but you actually want oxygen running through the RDSB.

You want normal oxygen levels in the water that flows through the container, the "bed" itself ( and bacteria ), takes care of oxygen gradation within the sand bed. It doesn't require any help.

That and the effluent would eventually disolve the sand in the RDSB provided it's not silica.

So, use Silica, or larger grained Araganite, to reduce dissolution.

You would periodically have to add sand to it, thus making the RDSB even less effective.

How does adding sand make the "bed" less effective ?

Originally posted by Daemonfly
But can you have it too deep? Also, I know the water comming out isn't too healthy, but what if it was then fed into a re-gassing tower? Example here:

No such thing as too deep, just a waste of sand and space after 6 to 8". More area equals more processing, more depth will add to longevity somewhat, but will not improve processing.

In a "flow over" type RDSB, the water that exits is almost identical to the water that enters.
It might be preferable to have a vent in the lid to release whatever gasses that could otherwise accumulate, and be reintroduced into the water. This might even be a problem that some people are having with their RDSB. A good question for Anthony.

If it had a bit of a smell from the RDSB functions, then could just pop on a carbon filter like the ones we use on Skimmer collection containers.

I don't think there is anything to remove other than nitrogen, unless the RDSB is in "failure". Nitrogen should not have a noticable smell.

Fred-J, the flow thru version can work, but is a bit more complicated. Read back several pages for a good discussion on "flow over" vs "flow thru" RDSB.

UGF is an amazing invention. Reverse UGF is heading towards a comeback in Reef Keeping !

> Barry

[Daemonfly]

Originally posted by barryhc
In a "flow over" type RDSB, the water that exits is almost identical to the water that enters.
It might be preferable to have a vent in the lid to release whatever gasses that could otherwise accumulate, and be reintroduced into the water. This might even be a problem that some people are having with their RDSB. A good question for Anthony.

I was actually talking about the flow-thru design for the output water. I've read that this isn't the best stuff to be pumping right back into the tank, hence wondering if a re-gessing chamber would be beneficial as a last step. Re-oxygenating the water and off-gassing the nitrogen before going back into the tank. Here & there I've read warnings about how nasty this resulting water can be, but no details, so is it just oxygen deprived & nitrogen filled, or is there something else there we have to worry about?

A tall single pipe for a flow-through version would have a lot smaller footprint, and would seem to work better, space wise, on some of my tanks.

[REEF-DADDY]

Thanks Barry.

[barryhc]

Originally posted by Daemonfly
I was actually talking about the flow-thru design for the output water. I've read that this isn't the best stuff to be pumping right back into the tank, hence wondering if a re-gessing chamber would be beneficial as a last step. Re-oxygenating the water and off-gassing the nitrogen before going back into the tank. Here & there I've read warnings about how nasty this resulting water can be, but no details, so is it just oxygen deprived & nitrogen filled, or is there something else there we have to worry about?

A tall single pipe for a flow-through version would have a lot smaller footprint, and would seem to work better, space wise, on some of my tanks.

Start here for a very thorough discussion of these considerations.

http://reefcentral.com/forums/showth...&pagenumber=23

> Barry

[chrisk77]

Great thread!!! Incredibly insightfull. I am building my RDSB this weekend!

I have read throught the part where Anthony discusses that the effluent from a protien skimmer would be preferable for the supply for the RSDB. My question is this: would it be detrimental to the RSDB if effluent from my charcoal reactor was plumbed to the RSDB instead of the protien skimmer. I have an Aqua C Skimmer and plumbing the effluent to the RSDB would restrict water flow; which the manufacturer discourages.

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Chris

[captbunzo]

That should be fine. I'd suggest a Maxijet powerhead.