Picking deep sand bed over shallow?

[Hodge1995]

Not sure how a storm manually removes waste from ocean. It boils down to how you want to remove it. Via lots of flow and bare bottom. shallow sand bed and vacuuming it constantly, or dsb and using other tools such ats to remove. I would agree it all gets remove eventually but it just depends on how much you want to work to do it. I have done them all in the last 5 years. Started bare bottom , went to shallow sand bed, now going to dsb. I could spend 3 pages explaining why I switched but in the end the op of the post just need to do his own research to decide. I am actually in the middle where it seems a lot of people are no sand or dsb and will just argue endelessly their views. I had it put to me simply one time. A guy told me the way you should decide what works is find a couple tanks that look like you want your to look that have been running long term. See what their common points are and go for it. But just because it works for them doesn't mean it will for you. There are things in this hobby that defy explanation.

[ca1ore]

Originally Posted by Reefin' Dude

none of this is earth shattering or debated in any other pet/livestock industry. it is all known good husbandry practices. only those in the reef hobby believe that keeping poo around is a good thing for all organisms.

I find that to be a poor analogy. Vast majority of the livestock industry is not trying to maintain an ecosystem - it's purely about producing as much salable meat product as possible (I've consulted for the Dairy Industry) so of course removal of waste is necessary. I'd argue the same for most other pets as well. I am the CUC for my cat! No terrestrial hermits or snails to come in to the house to remove poop I'd also argue that for something like a FOWLR, active detritus removal is also a good and necessary practice because it's not really an ecosystem either. I just don't agree, necessarily, for a reef tank; where an ecosystem is (or can be) the goal.

[Dmorty217]

Originally Posted by ca1ore

I'm always reminded of comments, I believe, from David Saxby who noted (I'm paraphrasing) that before following advice from anyone, get a look at their tank. If it's superb, do as they do - exactly as they do.

Simon, that's a great quote from one of the masters himself

[ca1ore]

Originally Posted by Dmorty217

Simon, that's a great quote from one of the masters himself

Indeed! Never saw his tank in person (rather a long way to go, plus never got invited ..... Bad table manners perhaps). Based on videos, a true jaw dropper. As an anthias fanatic, just wow!

[PhaneSoul]

Hodge, when a storm hits it stirs up the sand putting detritus into the water column and then is swept away by the current. 'Typhooning' your tank is essentially the same thing only you filter it out with a filter sock or in PaulB's case a diatom filter. If you wanna go further and actually get into removal of waste then plate tectonics, magma and mountains come into play among other things.
When you use a dsb and other tools your removing the inorganic nutrients and letting the waste organic nutrients stay in the tank. That is not removal of waste, that is removal of chemicals leaving the waste in the tank. The same can be said for any other piece of equipment that doesn't act like a skimmer or siphon.

[Dmorty217]

Originally Posted by ca1ore

Indeed! Never saw his tank in person (rather a long way to go, plus never got invited ..... Bad table manners perhaps). Based on videos, a true jaw dropper. As an anthias fanatic, just wow!

Yeah I too have never seen it in person (invitation was lost in the mail I think) but the videos are jaw dropping!

[dkeller_nc]

Originally Posted by ca1ore

I find that to be a poor analogy.

Precisely. It'd be just as poor of an analogy to claim that solid animal manure that's been in an active compost pile is still "poo".

[acrohead500ppm]

Here is my .02

DSB really require quite a bit of work and up keep to keep from becoming time bombs. Most people have great success with them for the first year or two but usually due to lack of upkeep/ vacuuming shallow layers, not keeping and eye on detritvore population, not frequent enough water changes-like many said before, they accumulate a crap ton of undissolved organic and inorganic compounds/ P04 and so on.

have maintained saltwater aquariums/reefs professionally for almost 10 years, and many times I have been given the task : "this is our reef tank, we fired our other fishguy because the tank looks awful, make it pretty! NOW ! ".
As a result, I have breathed in more hydrogen sulfide in my lifetime than any human should.

Most of these cases were of a failed DSB. IMO anything over 1.5" is deep enough for gradual disaster if not maintained correctly.
More times than often it was way too far gone, and without overhauling the whole thing it would have been an up hill never ending battle. Pretty much everytime, drain, scrub/ dunk rocks, remove sandbed, clean tank, etc etc.
I always had a very hard time convincing clients to go sandless though.

Nothing more than an inch IMO, unless you can commit to diligently maintaining a DSB. Personally I am a fan of BB tanks, esp for SPS dominated systems, with really good LR (not man made) you have enough deep porous hypoxic surface area inside for a good amount nitrate reducing bacteria populations, not as much as a DSB will offer, but BB tanks are not completely void of O2 poor SA.

I strive to chase undissolved nutrients/ detritus in my system before they can break down, this is crucial with barebottom tanks that are heavily fed. Its also the reason most choose to go barebottom in the first place. I believe that it enables you to remove detritus/uneaten food/ waste much more efficiently via skimmer, but even more importantly during water changes, being able to siphon out all of that gunk/ from inside/ under the rock work thats gathered on the bottom. Seeing that gunk water you just removed, then replacing it with fresh, clean saltwater.....MMMMmmmmmm good feelings.

[Hodge1995]

Originally Posted by PhaneSoul

Hodge, when a storm hits it stirs up the sand putting detritus into the water column and then is swept away by the current. 'Typhooning' your tank is essentially the same thing only you filter it out with a filter sock or in PaulB's case a diatom filter. If you wanna go further and actually get into removal of waste then plate tectonics, magma and mountains come into play among other things.
When you use a dsb and other tools your removing the inorganic nutrients and letting the waste organic nutrients stay in the tank. That is not removal of waste, that is removal of chemicals leaving the waste in the tank. The same can be said for any other piece of equipment that doesn't act like a skimmer or siphon.

So where exactly does the "current" take it, to another part of the ocean just to be redeposited. The ocean doesn't empty into any where else so where does the "current" have to go? It can stir it up but cannot actually remove anything. All waste eventually breaks down and can be removed in multiple ways in a tank situation.

[CStrickland]

Originally Posted by Hodge1995

You need to take a trip to Inland aquatics, or even Paul b those are just 2 of the people that have had dsb over 20 years that have no issues.

I don't think Paul runs a dsb, where did you get that idea from?

[PhaneSoul]

Originally Posted by Hodge1995

So where exactly does the "current" take it, to another part of the ocean just to be redeposited. The ocean doesn't empty into any where else so where does the "current" have to go? It can stir it up but cannot actually remove anything. All waste eventually breaks down and can be removed in multiple ways in a tank situation.

Did you miss the whole plate tectonics, magma, mountains, ect.. Part?? What about insoluble materials, I think they call it mulm, marine sediments, ect.. This might help.
image.jpg

I randomly googled that pic from here:
http://www.shmoop.com/ecology/phosphorus-cycle.html

If you read they that link even they point out excess is not good. Geoff is right, everyone gets it EXCEPT this hobby.

Paul doesn't run a dsb, his substrate which is dolomite is about 1-2in deep if I recall correctly. He also runs a reverse under gravel filter which pushes water from the botto of the tank up through the substrate to help keep detritus from being pulled down to sit and rot at the bottom.

[WayneL333]

Originally Posted by WayneL333

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with your comment. I'm a big believer in dsb. I find that the sand buffers superbly and keeps your tank very consistent, not to mention all the surface area for beneficial bacteria to attach to. I've always had at least a 6" sandbed. Here's a video from my last tank before a seal on my acrylic tank failed:



And a link to my current tank build with a 6" sandbed too:

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/sh....php?t=2377665

Not to beat a dead horse but again, this system was at least 6 years old. I actually think it's over 7 but I can't remember. It had a 6" sandbed that I never touched. As you can see, it's sps dominate. 95% of the colonies were grown from frags an 1" or smaller. I didn't do anything special except for skim well, run gfo and carbon. I didn't even use a filter sock. I dosed Ca and alk and used a Ca and Kalk reactors because my reactors couldn't keep up with my coral consumption. I dosed I and Mg too. That along with regular weekly water changes are all I ever did.

[acrohead500ppm]

Originally Posted by WayneL333

Not to beat a dead horse but again, this system was at least 6 years old. I actually think it's over 7 but I can't remember. It had a 6" sandbed that I never touched. As you can see, it's sps dominate. 95% of the colonies were grown from frags an 1" or smaller. I didn't do anything special except for skim well, run gfo and carbon. I didn't even use a filter sock. I dosed Ca and alk and used a Ca and Kalk reactors because my reactors couldn't keep up with my coral consumption. I dosed I and Mg too. That along with regular weekly water changes are all I ever did.

[PhaneSoul]

Originally Posted by WayneL333

Not to beat a dead horse but again, this system was at least 6 years old. I actually think it's over 7 but I can't remember. It had a 6" sandbed that I never touched. As you can see, it's sps dominate. 95% of the colonies were grown from frags an 1" or smaller. I didn't do anything special except for skim well, run gfo and carbon. I didn't even use a filter sock. I dosed Ca and alk and used a Ca and Kalk reactors because my reactors couldn't keep up with my coral consumption. I dosed I and Mg too. That along with regular weekly water changes are all I ever did.

How much longer do you think that system would have sustained without cleaning out the sand?

[WayneL333]

Originally Posted by PhaneSoul

How much longer do you think that system would have sustained without cleaning out the sand?

That question never even entered my mind.

[Hodge1995]

Originally Posted by PhaneSoul

Did you miss the whole plate tectonics, magma, mountains, ect.. Part?? What about insoluble materials, I think they call it mulm, marine sediments, ect.. This might help.
Attachment 312808

I randomly googled that pic from here:
http://www.shmoop.com/ecology/phosphorus-cycle.html

If you read they that link even they point out excess is not good. Geoff is right, everyone gets it EXCEPT this hobby.

Paul doesn't run a dsb, his substrate which is dolomite is about 1-2in deep if I recall correctly. He also runs a reverse under gravel filter which pushes water from the botto of the tank up through the substrate to help keep detritus from being pulled down to sit and rot at the bottom.

So your little diagram shows dissolved organics and phosphates being absorbed by plants. Hmm kinda like an ATS. Not like a vacuum cleaner. I read the plate tectonics and the rest of it ,none of it says vacuum cleaner to me.Noone here is saying that excess is good. For some reason you barebottom guys think the only way to remove nutrients is by a vacuum cleaner or changing water. I would refer you to your own diagram. You cannot even agree that more than one way can be successfull long term.You are wearing blinders.
I started this hobby many years ago with Geoff helping me along the way because I was running a peninsula shallow sandbed and was only on his favorite forum. I spent 3 years on this method and had all but given up.I had awfull algae problems and couldn't grow a coral to save my butt .Algae you say? Change more water! vacumm your sand more!Reduce feeding! So for a solid year I changed 50 gallons a week siphoning sandbed and still the algae persisted.I supplemented this with using tons of gfo as well in addition to all but starving fish to death. I changed lighting because it is also preached that mh bulbs cause algae growth after a year in use.? Right? I proved that theory a bust as well. It wasn't until I made a trip to Inland aquatics that I seen with my own eyes what could be done in a totally different manner than what is preached by the BB guys. I had nothing to loose and decided to try it. In the last year I haven't seen my tank in better form. Corals are exploding, fish are happy and fat, to top it all off I don't spend an hour or better every sunday changing water and siphoning the tank.The algae is long gone as well.
Is my way the only way to have a succesfull tank? Heck no. I have seen nice BB tanks as well. My point is there are many succesfull ways to keep these tanks. It is our duty to newer guys to educate them in the different ways and let them decide, Not cram your style down their throat and argue that it is the only way. I stand corrected on pauls tank I read lot of threads I do remember he uses a bunch different methods that are not widely accepted as the rule in reefing.Also if I remember he uses a type of ats that uses a plastic gutter to help remove nitrates.

[PhaneSoul]

I never said a dsb would be unsuccessful. I never said anything would be successful for that matter, I only state it needs to be cleaned. Removed from the water. That's what plate tectonics do. They remove from the water and lock it in landmass for the rest of the ecosystem to utilize. That's why our earths ecosystem works, and even then it crashes every so often. But we are not dealing with something so massive, but a box full of water a few feet long, much more prone to crashing.

I noticed the green growing in my picture provided, I also noticed it's growing on the bank right next to the landmass, where phosphates are being exported to. That would be like the lagoon areas, notice how there is no green on the right side.

Your right it is our duty to educate, but not to give out false information like substrates are 'self maintaining' and all the nutrients added get recycled and don't worry about what's at the bottom of the sandbed. Or that ats's, gfo, ect are solutions, but merely band aides.

I don't say you have to vacuume the sandbed every week either, IMO that is the best way for systems kept in your average living room, but you do need to export, whether it be a dsb being changed out when it shows signs of failing, vacuuming every week to control organic waste which in turn will control inorganic nutrients or doing whatever to export so often.

[zooman72]

Why, after coming across one of these sand vs. no sand (or refugium vs. no refugium) threads/ arguments, do I come away feeling like someone is trying to convert me for a religion?

G~/ Geoff/ Reefin Dude tried this approach over on NR.com and it was the same thing - passing off this "scientific lecture" as if so many of us have it all so wrong. As has been said by many (and several just in this thread) - there is more than one way to be successful.

Simon also reminded me of one of my favorite sayings here and it is so relevant - show more your work and results before you preach to me about success (or give advice), something that Wayne so graciously did...

[CStrickland]

Originally Posted by zooman72

G~/ Geoff/ Reefin Dude tried this approach over on NR.com and it was the same thing - passing off this "scientific lecture" as if so many of us have it all so wrong. As has been said by many (and several just in this thread) - there is more than one way to be successful.

That nr.com thread is fantastic! Geoff and futuredoc did a wonderful job explaining so many of the processes in our tanks, and they were really gentlemanly about it too, all things considered. Before I stumbled on that stuff, I was really smitten with all of the mumbo jumbo surrounding dsb's magic abilities to self-maintain. Same with fuges. I don't see G saying it's the only way anywhere (this thread included) and at this point his is hardly a minority position.

I'm impressed with how logically people are advocating for dsbs lately, there's much less nonsense than you see in articles and posts that are even just a few years old, ie. the nr.com thread. Like how Wayne talks about his tank coherently, and the rdsb reefers make good points too. But it still gets pretty heated and defensive. I don't mind, but I understand folks getting annoyed, I feel that way about ich so I stay out of those threads.

Personal taste, but I think the science of how tanks work is very interesting and of a piece with "what works for one may not work for another" and "show your work." Good info doesn't care. There's plenty to debate without getting picky about who can give advice, most are smart enough to figure out to whom they feel like listening.

[Reefin' Dude]

nobody is trying to cram any methodology down anybody's throat here. we are just trying to explain what is going on and let the reefer decide what they would like to do. the science is the same whether it is in nature, a BB system, or a DSB system. food goes in, crap must come out at a rate to match the trophic state one is trying to emulate. that is all. if you want to use carbon, GFO, ATS, whatever the eutrophication masking device du jour is, great. but know what is going on in the system. know why you need to use these devices. know how the inorganic nutrients are there in the first place. until somebody has all of the information, available that person can not make an informed decision.

this is a discussion and an exchange of information, nothing more. nobody is keeping anybody from posting their sources of information as to how they perceive the science is working in there systems.

show us how the phosphate cycle is somehow different in our systems, than in nature. show us how exporting an organism is able to control the total nutrients of a system, while taking into account the resources it needs to survive or the waste products it produces. show us how testing for inorganic compounds can give an accurate gauge of the total nutrients in the system, when the majority of all of the nutrients are organically bound. these are all basic biological questions that should be easily answered in order to keep any living organism long term. if the answers do not make sense, then they probably are not doing what you think they are doing.

G~

[zooman72]

Originally Posted by CStrickland

That nr.com thread is fantastic! Geoff and futuredoc did a wonderful job explaining so many of the processes in our tanks, and they were really gentlemanly about it too, all things considered. Before I stumbled on that stuff, I was really smitten with all of the mumbo jumbo surrounding dsb's magic abilities to self-maintain. Same with fuges. I don't see G saying it's the only way anywhere (this thread included) and at this point his is hardly a minority position.

I'm impressed with how logically people are advocating for dsbs lately, there's much less nonsense than you see in articles and posts that are even just a few years old, ie. the nr.com thread. Like how Wayne talks about his tank coherently, and the rdsb reefers make good points too. But it still gets pretty heated and defensive. I don't mind, but I understand folks getting annoyed, I feel that way about ich so I stay out of those threads.

Personal taste, but I think the science of how tanks work is very interesting and of a piece with "what works for one may not work for another" and "show your work." Good info doesn't care. There's plenty to debate without getting picky about who can give advice, most are smart enough to figure out to whom they feel like listening.

I personally would not call that NR thread "fantastic", but it certainly was interesting, and it pertained to whether refugiums could be successfully employed. Many of that sites members (including myself) believed they could, whereas G~ and the "doc" tried to explain how wrong we were, only moderating their tone after much discussion.

I agree that the biological science behind much of the husbandry for aquarists is vitally important and fascinating, but one must be careful in extrapolating natural events/ processes with our closed systems. Much of the information we now possess is from past trial and error, and while individual experiences cannot be taken as gospel (being anecdotal), they do open up avenues of further inquiry...

Originally Posted by Reefin' Dude

nobody is trying to cram any methodology down anybody's throat here. we are just trying to explain what is going on and let the reefer decide what they would like to do. the science is the same whether it is in nature, a BB system, or a DSB system. food goes in, crap must come out at a rate to match the trophic state one is trying to emulate. that is all. if you want to use carbon, GFO, ATS, whatever the eutrophication masking device du jour is, great. but know what is going on in the system. know why you need to use these devices. know how the inorganic nutrients are there in the first place. until somebody has all of the information, available that person can not make an informed decision.

this is a discussion and an exchange of information, nothing more. nobody is keeping anybody from posting their sources of information as to how they perceive the science is working in there systems.

show us how the phosphate cycle is somehow different in our systems, than in nature. show us how exporting an organism is able to control the total nutrients of a system, while taking into account the resources it needs to survive or the waste products it produces. show us how testing for inorganic compounds can give an accurate gauge of the total nutrients in the system, when the majority of all of the nutrients are organically bound. these are all basic biological questions that should be easily answered in order to keep any living organism long term. if the answers do not make sense, then they probably are not doing what you think they are doing.

G~

"Nutrients in = nutrients out" is not a point of contention, but the efficiency of the methodology seems to be. Also, show us the "fruits of your science/ beliefs", or prove that closed aquariums precisely follow all natural processes, and that species kept do not adapt to our artificial conditions, or that those who keep aquariums that "fly in the face" of what is previously argued are incorrect.

The simple fact is that most aquarists do not keep their aquariums long enough to "test" either hypothesis. I personally do not keep DSB's, preferring ~2" to aid in nutrient removal (along with filter socks, skimmers, carbon and a small refugium) - that is the extent of my contribution to this thread, sorry...

[Reefin' Dude]

Originally Posted by ca1ore

As an experienced and long-time reefer I have the benefit of largely having worked out what works for me. Lots of trial and error, of course, along the way. I use lots of sand, a large skimmer, ATS, carbon and GFO, and don't worry a whole lot about detritus removal. There's always somebody who then feels the need to write a novel about why my approach is misguided, and cannot possibly work. Yes it has, and does (and there's photographic evidence to prove it). There are other experienced folks who run systems with essentially no sand, feel turf scrubbers are significantly flawed, and aggressively remove every bit of detritus that has the temerity to show up. Guess what, that works really well too. Hard for the newbie, though, to work out whats best for him (or her).

I'm always reminded of comments, I believe, from David Saxby who noted (I'm paraphrasing) that before following advice from anyone, get a look at their tank. If it's superb, do as they do - exactly as they do.

we can learn from examples.

the example i learned from:



RC thread.

my tank before i took it down to live abroad:



all corals grown from frags. only about a year and a half of growth in this picture.

sorry, i do not have a better pic of the tank rebuilt after the move back to the states. here is the tank right before taking it down because of the Cheating Home Wrecker kicking me out of the house. this is how the tank looked after a month of me doing nothing to the tank, but hoping she would feed the tank once a day minimum. the tank was used to being fed 5 times a day. no water changes for a month.



an earlier pic of the tank taken about 6 months before the take down.



build thread if interested.

maintenance on the tank was minimal. 5-10g water changes every week. size depended on the amount of detritus in the sump. 12,500gph of flow in the display. only 350gph through the sump to facilitate detrital accumulation in an easy to reach area. very little detritus would accumulate in the display. only the sand produced by bacterial action in the LR would accumulate in the display. every other month i would need to hit these small sand piles to remove them.

no carbon, no GFO, no live sump, no calcium reactor, nothing. note the size of the clams. used plain old IO salt. used kalkwasser in the top off water. once a month i would double check the Ca, Alk, and Mg. would adjust if necessary. 40w UV plumbed directly into the input of the skimmer. skimmer processed more than the amount of water going through the sump. about 400gph through the skimmer. . usually not. this setup is nearly exactly the same setup as Bomber's. Bomber used a Starboard bottom, i used a FSB.

fed the tank up to 5 times a day depending on the organisms. i was trying to keep crinoids in the system, so it was fed 3 times during the day and twice at night when the crinoids would emerge.

the frag tank i am currently building. completely designed with nutrient export as the main priority.



link to the build thread.

G~

[PhaneSoul]

Originally Posted by Reefin' Dude

maintenance on the tank was minimal. 5-10g water changes every week. size depended on the amount of detritus in the sump. 12,500gph of flow in the display. only 350gph through the sump to facilitate detrital accumulation in an easy to reach area. very little detritus would accumulate in the display. only the sand produced by bacterial action in the LR would accumulate in the display. every other month i would need to hit these small sand piles to remove them.

no carbon, no GFO, no live sump, no calcium reactor, nothing. note the size of the clams. used plain old IO salt. used kalkwasser in the top off water. once a month i would double check the Ca, Alk, and Mg. would adjust if necessary. 40w UV plumbed directly into the input of the skimmer. skimmer processed more than the amount of water going through the sump. about 400gph through the skimmer. . usually not. this setup is nearly exactly the same setup as Bomber's. Bomber used a Starboard bottom, i used a FSB.

fed the tank up to 5 times a day depending on the organisms. i was trying to keep crinoids in the system, so it was fed 3 times during the day and twice at night when the crinoids would emerge.

G~

For those of you playing along that's a 200g of salt every 5 months + food + kalkwasser cost + food, only about 75$ - 100$ to maintain per 5 months depending on blender mush ingredients and how much your lfs charges for salt

[Hodge1995]

[PhaneSoul]

Heh, I was in class today and came across this quote, pretty ironic if you ask me.

"Everybody nowadays, believes in scores of assumptions for which there is good evidence, but no perfect visual proof. And does not science demonstrate that visual proof is the weakest proof? It is constantly being revealed, as mankind studies the material world, that outward appearances are not inward reality at all."