DSBs & long term viability, the evidence against..

[madmac]

It doesn't, Tuan. Those who hv tried it, supplement it with strong dark skimming, macro algae refugiums, huge water changes, loads of other stuff in their sumps. If water gets into the inner reaches of the DSB, its loses its ability to de-nitrify, as anoxic region goes deeper into the confines...These other supplementary methods attest to their in-ability to de-nitrify... as you correctly said, it takes place in the anaerobic regions... how anaerobic is your SB.? how does one know for sure.?

Those bubbles you see aren't N2. They're only produced in the late day and too close to the surface of the water, for denitrification to take place. I mean to say you don't see them at nite and de-nitrification shd be 24/7. I believe they are O2 bubbles.

SB that are thriving, shd support all kinds of productive life. Life forms shouldn't have to diminished over time... take the nature example, however in the tanks they do.. how come?

[hotlemond]

we lack so much of the "recharge kit" here locally, which is critical component for the effectiveness of a DSB.

[weisoon]

SB that are thriving, shd support all kinds of productive life. Life forms shouldn't have to diminished over time... take the nature example, however in the tanks they do.. how come?

Tank is a closed system. It will be very difficult to provide the kinds of 'food' to support the life forms inside the DSB unlike in nature.

[weisoon]

DSB lacks of live? hmm.. are you talking about amphipods, cpoepods or other critters? imo, i think as a practice we should change our live rocks once a year. There are some american reefers who have taken to the extremes. Instead of buying, they seed their own rocks by growing a healthy population of copepods and algae (bear in mind its not caulerpa i am talking abt) and when their main tank's live rocks run out of live, they change and transfer. though bad to the corals, but definitely beneficial to the sand bed. but if we are doing changes on those smaller rocks i dont see why not? can always try eh?

Just my 2 cents worth..

IMHO, it will be good to add a piece or two of fresh collected life rock and replace the ones that were in the tank for a considerable period of time. It is to increase the bio-diversity of the system. If the system is left as it is for a long period of time, the tank will be left with a mono-culture of bacteria (the strongest of them will be the ultimate survivor) and this will not be good for the overall tank's health and also to the corals.

[tuan]

It doesn't, Tuan. Those who hv tried it, supplement it with strong dark skimming, macro algae refugiums, huge water changes, loads of other stuff in their sumps. If water gets into the inner reaches of the DSB, its loses its ability to de-nitrify, as anoxic region goes deeper into the confines...These other supplementary methods attest to their in-ability to de-nitrify... as you correctly said, it takes place in the anaerobic regions... how anaerobic is your SB.? how does one know for sure.?

Those bubbles you see aren't N2. They're only produced in the late day and too close to the surface of the water, for denitrification to take place. I mean to say you don't see them at nite and de-nitrification shd be 24/7. I believe they are O2 bubbles.

SB that are thriving, shd support all kinds of productive life. Life forms shouldn't have to diminished over time... take the nature example, however in the tanks they do.. how come?

Don't know about "those who have tried it"... it is working for me.

I do have macro algae refugium, skimming, PO4 export via gFe compounds.. everything going.

I counter-act the "problems" of the DSB by putting mine in a 8' x 2' feet refugium, totally separate from the main tank, without any fish predators at all. Half of this tank is kept in the dark (ala cryptic zone), there are a few pieces of live rock (introduced fresh/uncured). The bubbles can be seen in both dark and lit zones and there is no way it can be Oxygen (there's no explaination of why O2 would be generated).

The water column in this tank is buzzing with free swimming pods. All kinds of feather dusters/sponges/filter feeders are thriving. The whole tank is packed full of worms/asterina starfish/small white brittle stars.. and unfortunately loads of aiptasia too (as there are no predators on them). I feed this tank periodically with a mix of food, almost as much as I feed my main display tank. The lit side is bathed with 2x 150w MH during the night, bristle worms spawn quite regularly as well as a myriad of chitons/stomatella etc..

I guess what I'm saying is that yes a DSB can be hard work, but it does work, although I would like to give the tank another 5 years to really test it. What you cannot do though is to rubbish it off just like that as it may well be a viable option for larger systems.

[iantoh]

hi all, as i'm a fan of the DSB school, just thought id add my two cents worth.

there are certainly merits to the other different reef systems, especially the Berlin style and Jaubert plenum, but as most of you will note, all public aquaria (like the monteray Bay or underwaterworld aquariums, even in their nano closed tank systems, utilize DSB. denitrification does take place within DSBs of sufficient thickness. DSB tanks without skimmers and photosynthetic organisms have been shown to actively process nitrates into nitrogen and oxygen.

the thing is, it is obviously better to remove the organic material before it even has the chance to break down, hence Berlin heavy skimming. but that does not mean that DSBs are unproductive. rather, these different methods should be used in tandem to best employ as many nitrate reducing factors as may be incorporated into a tank.

furthermore, how often do you see DSB users actually using the required three to four inches of sand? the wrong application of a system should not be faulted on the system itself. As Bro tuan says, a reef keeping community is about sharing information to improve the hobby for each other, and not for "mine is better" sort of debates. There is extensive literature on DSBs and why the major public aquaria and coral aquaculture farms utilize them. pls do check them out.

cheers,

ian

[iantoh]

a good overview of DSBs.

http://www.rshimek.com/reef/sediment.htm

bros looking for recharge packs try contacting venezia. shes got lots of mini stars and such infauna that will help the boost your sandbed biological activity.

[madmac]

Tuan, at no time did I rubbish anything/anyone. I'm not referring to your setup when I commented. I am participating in this thread and tryin to maintain topic. That is truly a wonder... I cannot imagine what you hv there... but it'll be along the lines of sheer crazy passion for the hobby.

So why is there so many tank failures from DSBs? The answer lies with the reef keeper!

When you mentioned that, did you believed that they should hv adopted a setup similar to yours in order to succeed? Did you think that your setup is common in the first place.? The "those who have tried" is in reference to your statement above.

I've just pulled out some definitions from the web on the classification water conditions: Heres one on "eutrophic"

Definitions of eutrophic on the Web:

Term used to describe an environment which has an excessive concentration of nutrients. Eutrophic waters usually have dense plant (usually algae) populations. Typical of lowland lakes in agricultural areas, where nutrients are washed into the water, or farmed ponds where manure and other nutrients are added to increase productivity. See also Mesotrophic , Oligotrophic

www.aquatext.com/list-e.htm

Describes a body of water with a high concentration of nutrient salts and a high or excessive rate of biological production.

www.sis.nlm.nih.gov/Glossary/e.html

Having optimal concentrations of nutrients (or nearly so) for plant or animal growth.

www.knowledgebank.irri.org/glossary/Glossary/E.htm

Water with high phytoplankton biomass. Chlorophyll-a concentrations exceed 10 mg m- 3 . Mesotrophic Water with moderate phytoplankton biomass: chlorophyll-a concentrations range from approximately 0.5 to 10 mg m- 3 .

www.wetlabs.com/glossary.htm

Water or soil that are high nutrient concentrations such as nitrogen and phosphorus which stimulate excessive green plant life.

www.narrabay.com/empact/Glossary.htm

refers to a body of water which is excessively rich in dissolved nutrients and usually poor in dissolved oxygen. Opp: oligotrophic

www.nps.gov/plants/restore/library/glossary.htm

refers to ocean regions that have high nutrient concentrations and support a rich food web (compare mesotrophic and oligotrophic)

coexploration.org/bbsr/classroombats/html/body_glossary.html

a situation in which the increased availability of nutrients such as nitrate and phosphate stimulates the growth of plants such that the oxygen content is depleted and carbon sequestered

www6.nos.noaa.gov/coris/glossary.lasso

Rivers and lakes rich in organisms and organic material (eu = truly; trophic = nutritious).

highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0070294267/student_view0/glossary_e-l.html

High in nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus) and high in organic (biological) production.

www.seagrant.sunysb.edu/BTRI/btriterms.htm

Waterbodies characterized by high levels of nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus)-often very productive systems with many aquatic plants and algae.

www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/plants/plantid2/glossary.html

Another one on 'oligotrophic'

Definitions of oligotrophic on the Web:

Water bodies or habitats with low concentrations of nutrients.

www.sfei.org/rmp/glossary_new.html

Reservoirs and lakes which are nutrient poor and contain little aquatic plant or animal life.

www.nsc.org/ehc/glossar1.htm

refers to a body of water which is poor in dissolved nutrients and usually rich in dissolved oxygen. Opp: eutrophic

www.nps.gov/plants/restore/library/glossary.htm

the state of a poorly-nourished, unproductive lake that is commonly oxygen rich and low in turbidity.

www.epa.gov/glnpo/lakeerie/glossary.html

Waters or soils that are poor in nutrients and have low primary productivity.

biology.usgs.gov/s+t/SNT/noframe/zy198.htm

Term applied to a body of water low in nutrients and in productivity. Mirror Lake is oligotrophic.

www.hubbardbrook.org/education/Glossary/Glossary.htm

A condition of lakes characterized by low concentrations of nutrients and algae and resulting good water transparency. An oligotrophic lake has less nutrients than a mesotrophic or eutrophic lake.

dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/waterres/lakes/glossary.htm

Refers to a class of lakes that exhibit low productivity, low levels of phosphorus and Chla, few rooted aquatic plants and algae, deep transparency readings [ 8.0 m (26.5 ft) or greater] and usually high dissolved oxygen levels throughout the water column. These lakes are considered to have excellent water quality.

www.mlci.org/students/Page.aspx

refers to a region with low concentrations of nutrients and low biological productivity, an ocean "desert" like the Sargasso Sea (compare eutrophic and mesotrophic)

coexploration.org/bbsr/classroombats/html/body_glossary.html

Waters that are poor in disolved nutrients, have low photosynthetic productivity, and are rich in disolved oxygen at all depths.

www.cbfishwildlife.org/glossary/index.php

term used to describe a nutrient-poor body of water.

www.calcofi.org/newhome/cruises/volunteer/handbook/glossary.htm

[madmac]

Tank is a closed system. It will be very difficult to provide the kinds of 'food' to support the life forms inside the DSB unlike in nature.

Weisoon, I don't think its due to the lack of 'food', theres more than plenty to go around. I think its due to poison.

[madmac]

the thing is, it is obviously better to remove the organic material before it even has the chance to break down, hence Berlin heavy skimming. but that does not mean that DSBs are unproductive. rather, these different methods should be used in tandem to best employ as many nitrate reducing factors as may be incorporated into a tank.

furthermore, how often do you see DSB users actually using the required three to four inches of sand? the wrong application of a system should not be faulted on the system itself. As Bro tuan says, a reef keeping community is about sharing information to improve the hobby for each other, and not for "mine is better" sort of debates. There is extensive literature on DSBs and why the major public aquaria and coral aquaculture farms utilize them. pls do check them out.

cheers,

ian

Ian, thats good point you've brought up. When applied correctly, as Bro Tuan has done, you'll see the sort of productive life it continues brings about... and that exactly how it works in nature too. And as WeiSoon has pointed out, don't forget its also a 'close' system, where unlike nature, which has an unlimited ocean supply of clean nutrient free waters to wash out and maintain that life.

AT was asking for views on the long term viability of DSBs here.. perhaps someone could define what that long term was... 2 yrs, 5 yrs, 10 yrs and above and while on that, maybe even narrow it to what one intends to keep... DSB have been known to work very well with mushrooms, rics, and softies and even some fishes. I'm assuming its for SPS here as its in same sub-heading.

[bluesky]

Currently, I have a > 4" DSB for SPS dominated scape. NO3 is zero. I also had a fOWLR tank with semi sand bed (2") (size garde 5) set up long before I learnt of this DSB technique from wetwebmedia & reef invert book by Athony calfo & Bob ferner(?) . Nowaday, I stuggle hard to keep my FOWLR tank NO3 at bay by doing 15% WEEKLY WATER CHANGE with manual hard labour syphoning. Still NO3 can never drop to zero. The best, I ever get is 30-40ppm. Whereas Changing water for the DSB tank. Ha, easy does it. Just change water. No syphoning!! Now, You can see which method is my favourite!! DSB. But this BBT stuff bothers me... hence I need to find out if NO3 can be zero in BBT & "normal' LR loading. (note : normal means what we normally put in our system).

what I wud like to say is I have 2 different systems running. Though not identical (one is fish mainly & the other SPS), they tell me something: "DSB is GOOD for NO3 redcution". Do I care what live forms or critters, pods still exit in the DSB? Of course NO! That's live sand. I don't want to confuse myself with LIVE SAND & DSB. You can have live sand without DSB. Can we have the reverse? I wud think so, but it is a guide NOT a must. Your critters & pods would be consumed all by your mandarin fish at no time if you do not couple with a refugium. As far as I am concerned, DSB main function is NO3 reduction & it does it well. whereas , when we mention live sand, we meant it to be BIO filter comparable with Live Rocks (LR). Though all are related in reality. BUT DSB is mainly for NO3 reduction (IMO) & there is no real substitute except:-

1. some expensive Zeovit stuff which I recently heard of AND

2. of course the PROVEN brelin (extra ++) method : LOTS of LRs in your tank & sump. LOTS.

3. Aggressive Algae harvest & export. (can get messy too).

4. some chemical stuff, which I dare not use...

Goin' to the "long term" thing. If you read more in DSB, you would realise that there is maintenance like sand replacement, ensure no deritrius or dead spot on sand..etc. But I presume these quarterly jobs are better than my weekly elbowed syphoning on my FOWLR tank anytime (May be should try BERLIN ++ = LOTS of live rocks in BIG sump).

Actually, there is this one lady in the reef central confessed that she has a DSB remote sump/refugium?? even she proclaimed the goodness of BBT over DSB initially. I think she is smart to have done that: having DSB in sump or refugium. right? But, I don understand why she ran down DSB?

May I respectfully ask those BBT subscribers, how long have you kept your tank BBT & how do you feed? What skimmer you use? Do you add extra LRs in your sump or display? Is NO3 zero? Please don get me wrong. I really meant to learnt from all your experience & I like to constantly improve my reefing skills all the time, like manyof us here. I oso have no hestitation to switch BBT if convinced..

Thanks all in advance & I am learning from what you guys are contributing. Thanks again.

[tuan]

Just rolling back a little here.

BBT is nothing new. It's the basic Berlin technique and has been around for umpteen years. Everybody keep going on and on about BB as if its a new invention or something...

The point is, it was around before people (mainly the US guys who started) adding sand, and then deep sand beds. So the question of how long has BB tanks been running can already be regarded in 15-20 years. It does lead to the question though.. if Berlin systems have been sucessful in the past (and still is), why did DSB come about at all?

Another point is live sand is critical to a DSB. The whole point is that you have a myriad of organisms living in the sand to slowly churn it and prevent the surface become compacted solid or clogged up with detritus. Food (including fish waste) that lands on the sand are dealt with instead of rotting. This food is basically consumed by some organisms, the waste product is consumed again and again by more and more organisms be it worms, pods, bacterial level.

Obviously the food cannot ultimately become nothing, but whats left, is basically inert. Mother nature take care of this whole process because if there's something that's edible/useful to some creature it will be consumed. But now, we have the left over of very fine dust like particle of detritus, and obviously you cannot go on adding this stuff into the sand bed forever.

What you can do though is periodically blast sections of the DSB with a jet of water, disturbing the top layers only, and bring back into the water column this remaining detritus. Mechanical filtration/skimming will then remove it from the water column and help to extend the life of the sand bed.

Occasional strong water flow that shift the sand surface about a little also help to simulate this 'storm process', just like in nature.

[scarab]

Another point is live sand is critical to a DSB. The whole point is that you have a myriad of organisms living in the sand to slowly churn it and prevent the surface become compacted solid or clogged up with detritus. Food (including fish waste) that lands on the sand are dealt with instead of rotting. This food is basically consumed by some organisms, the waste product is consumed again and again by more and more organisms be it worms, pods, bacterial level.

The myriad of organism living in the sand will eventually deplete in our closed system in the tank. Any suggestions what to intro to rejuvenate the live sand? Or just intro fresh live sand?

[bluesky]

Tuan, Thanks for such detailed explaination. I now understand better.

Scarab, your question is exactly what I have in mind now that I just realized DSB needs to be "live". Has anyone searched thro' reef central for some takes on this?

By the way, may be this would help. Who has the longest DSB based system here & how he/she manages to keep the sand rejuvenated. We then can learn... ??

My tank is only 1 year old. Cant say much here! Eager to learn more here

[iantoh]

hi everyone. just some more thoughts.

i agree with bro tuan and fellow reefers that live sand is useful for introducing the necessary fauna and infauna into deep sand beds, in doing so, mimicing the myraid forms of life found in natural sand beds in the ocean. The deep sand bad system however, is not entirely determinant on the use of live sand.

live sand aids in introducing bacteria, copepods, amphipods, etc, but the processes which we employ the DSB are not directly related to this.

The four or so inches of extra fine oolithic sand is meant to create layers in which oxygen is at gradually decreasing concentrations. that is, in the top one to two inches, bacteria species will convert ammonia to nitrites, and nitrites to nitrate. this is the oxygenated and slightly deoxygenated areas. in the bottom one inch or so is where nitrates are broken down by bacteria species (supposedly nitrobacter) into nitrogen and oxygen thereby completing the nitrogen cycle. if you purchase live sand, it has wonderful benefits in that it speeds up the cycling process and adds beneficial creatures to your tank, but crucially, it is devoid of bacteria species that are capable of breaking down nitrates into nitrogen and oxygen because in the process of live sand collection they have been exposed to oxygen and these critters can only survive in anoxic environments. what it does contain though are other bacteria species that will speed ip the cycling (explained below)

when you cycle your tank, youre supposed to observe not just an ammonia peak and nitrate peak, but also a nitrate reduction. and all this should occur without the use of any skimming or water change. hence, even with live sand, you will need a deep sand bed and allow bacteria to colonize the anoxic lower depths before the nitrogen cycle may be completed. without DSBs, it is even questionable as to whether the tank has actually completed cycling.

the berlin system on the other hand seeks to bypass the entire nitrogen cycle by skimming the organics out of the system before it even enters into breakdown processes. so basically, the DSB is the only system that actually involves in-tank denitrification. also, DSBs can be effective without live sand if left to cycle on its own.

if you leave a new tank's water to cycle on its own, without adding bacteria to the tank, bacteria will still enter the system. you see, from what i understand, the bacteria first colonize the surface of the sand bed, where they break ammonia into nitrites and nitrites into nitrates, thereafter as these bacteria grow, they will migrate further down the sand bed to the anoxic (oxygenless) regions and they will mutate to break down nitrates into nitrogen and oxygen there. it is crucial then that any DSB be of more than 3 inches and of extremely fine oolithic sand (each grain at about an eighth of a millimeter. and not larger. the usual grade 'o' sand most lfs sell and reefers use is not of the right fineness. as far as i know, only Irwana sells this grade of fine sand.)

furthermore, with most tanks (even my own), it is difficult or unsightly to have so much sand, hence the frequent use of less than 3-4 inches, and the resultant failure of the DSB system.

i think that if one is not so keen on the DSB, then perhaps following some of the bros here who have converted to berlin systems with no sand might be good. it prevents the buildup of nitrates and detritus in shallow sand beds that are not likely to facilitate significant nitrate breakdown, and allows better water movement and waste skimming. like i said, we ought to share our knowledge and add to our collective sense of understanding rather than bicker bout whats better. i honestly dont see any one system being superior to any other, but that they serve different needs. i myself do not have a sand bed that is 3 inches or more in depth but my previous tank was a full fledged DSB and it worked, and examples of its success are evident in all the reputed aquarias of the world so i think it is parochial to just write off the benefits DSBs can afford its users. for a good example, you guys can check out the sand bed inside Henry's (marinelife) front-of-the-store tank. his refugium ###### sump has a sand bed of more than 4 inches, and its been in function for a long time, and is a great example of the DSB in use i think. also easier to replace portions of the sand in a sump as opposed to a main tank.

lastly, sorry for not addressing this earlier as this was what was asked by AT in this thread, but i'm honestly not entirely sure of a definitive lifespan of deep sand beds. it is reported that DSBs will cause an accumulation of sulfides and other chemicals over a long time but as most reputed marine biologist (anthony calfo and bob fenner to name but a pair) suggest, the benefits of DSBs outway their drawbacks. in any closed system there is a lifespan, and honestly, which reefer here can say that theyve maintained tanks without having succumbed to the urge to rescape or redo things or reset their tanks within a five year time frame. if i remember correctly, the first public use of the Jaubert plenum beneath a DSB is at the Monteray Bay aquarium and theyve been in operation more than a decade and their assorted mushroom cliff tank has not been changed for almost a decade and they have growth pictures for show there. i think DSBs can safely be used by most aquarists without much worry. by the time the DSB might even begin to cause serious harm, youd probably have already redone the tank.

well cheers to all of you ya. we should meet up for coffee sometime.

ian

[scarab]

well cheers to all of you ya. we should meet up for coffee sometime.

ian

Good idea but it'll be kinda tough to get tuan to come, he's from the UK..........

Anyway good contribution everyone, learnt a lot from this thread.

[tuan]

Oops - another misleading word/misconception.

When I say "Live sand", I mean sand that is populated with critters/pods/worms ie.. the fauna, and not just bacteria.

Now some manufacturer/reseller are also selling "live sand" in a wet bag which isnt the same thing. They're talking about bacterialy active sand, but not much else really, what else can live in a sealed bag with a shelf life of nine months?

To make your own bacterially active live sand, get some sand, put in bucket with sea water/salt water, add in a piece or two of live rock rubble or a cup of sand from existing system, or anything that came from a living reef system... add some food (piece of shrimp/fish etc..) and wait a few days. You'll probably get more 'life' in your bucket than a shelf full of those bags IMHO.

[Gouldian]

Great discussion! Love the way both sides state thier ground amicably!

Thanks for the information and experiences shared!

[iantoh]

hi tuan.

i know youre refering to live sand thats approximately SG $50 dollars per bag. and i also know youre refering to the infauna that helps activate a sand bed such as copepods, amphipods, mini stars, bristle worms, lymphic worms, etc. no misconception. i meant to say that a DSB even without the critters that you suggest are necessary for a DSB to work, the DSB can still facilitate denitrification. recharger packs are for the breaking down of organics in ways that help to facilitate the quicker processing of ammonia and nitrites into nitrates and to provide more sugars in this breaking down process so that nitrites do not accumulate where it is not broken down quickly enough. the critters do not convert nitrates back into nitrogen and oxygen. it is the bacteria that do this.

the DSB will still work as long as bacteria are allowed to colonize the sand bed and the sand bed is deep enough. if you read up on DSBs, they actually discourage the introduction of sand sifting starfish of all genus, sand bed disturbing gobies or dragonets, and too many worms because such sand shifting activity aerates the sand bed too much and causes the oxygenation of the lower depths which you actually want to be oxygen-free for the proliferation of nitrobacter sp.

ian

ps: pls do read up on DSBs, understand the science behind it, and give it a full chance before you deride it.

[tuan]

ian,

I'm confused now. Is the whole post above aimed at my comments?

Yes, it is the bacteria that performs the filtration, and not the infauna.

But, without the infauna, the surface of sand bed quickly becomes a solid plate like concrete. This is due to blockage from detritus, due to precipitation of calcium crystals, due to some dissolution and then bonding from the action of the biofilm coating the sand particles.

When the sand solidifies like this, it obviously stop functioning as a filter as water can no longer diffuse downwards, and so the bacteria population below the surface are starved and die off.

Which is why the infauna (& diversity of) is so important. Sure in experimental tanks you can just use bioactive sand and watch ammonia disappear and observe the full denitrification process. In a real reef tank this is not true.

I also commented on the avoidance of sand shifters fish/star fish and even hermit crabs as these will all feed on the infauna that we're trying to protect. Worms in the sand is critical as part of the process of keeping the sand lose. Their movements actually doesn't disturb the sand layers that much, if you're sad enough to sit and watch how they move through the sand layers.

ps: pls do read up on DSBs, understand the science behind it, and give it a full chance before you deride it.

Well - I read and read for years, even after many people have reported problems with DSBs, and then I installed my tanks with 46 square feet worth of deep sand bed in them... don't think I'm deriding them in anyway here

[Gouldian]

Some of us have been super fortunate to attend the seminar by Anthony R. Calfo last night and part of the topics discussed is DSB.

From my limited understanding of his speech, there is no hard and fast rules as to DSB is the way or Bare Bottom is the way. But rather the aquarist's total understanding of the methods he/she chose, ensure that he/she practice whatever disciplines needed to effective sustain his/her chosen method.

Often, especially in Singapore, we are always looking for quick one time solutions. We are usually to quick to embrace or slam a method without detailed investigations. When we have maintain a healthy reef for 1 or 2 months, we surmise that we have a perfect solution for our reef. When we don't see results after 1 or 2 months, we simply slam the methods as ineffective.

But I really appreciate both Ian, Tuan and the rest of the bros and sis that have contributed in one way or other to promote better reefing methods.

[blueheaven]

Yeah, sometimes I am also sick of people who think they can put in up to 6 inches of sandbed and say that they have a DSB but after a while, either algae smothers the surface or they have an anaerobic zone and have the "black stuff"

Actually the statement of creating an anaerobic zone is false as it only serves ammonification in which nitrates are converted to ammonium which Anthony likes to say "its rocket fuel" for algae growth. So I believe that in regards to what Anthony had said, all systems will work but it all depends on the user who work it

[madmac]

Goudian,

I wud rather decide what I like to keep and then choose the method that best suit the things I liked to keep. There are beautiful euthropic reef tanks, with mushrooms, anemones, etc.. Its is not to say that DSB won't work... but there are scientific, both biological/chemical evidence that they fail over time when trying with animals like SPS.

My fear, whilst willing to share what I've learnt, the person feels put down.. I was not. I gave sensible opposing views... I'm not hitting at the person's passion... I share your passion and am respectful of your efforts(or lack of), I feel less incline to be offended by remarks, in turn, esp when they serve to correct. The trouble with such threads is that they ultimately thread on ppls toes... I don't know why(maybe because they achieved alot and anything different from their learned passion offends), and they do... This stifles further dialog... believe me that last thing I want is to be known as starter of sorts.

promoting better reefing methods is indeed noble... lets hope that whats shared is correct, and best factual, woe if it be wrong...

You know, your previous Boxer dog avatar serves a better description of you than the canary. Now pls don't go offended.

[Gouldian]

Goudian,

I wud rather decide what I like to keep and then choose the method that best suit the things I liked to keep.  There are beautiful euthropic reef tanks, with mushrooms, anemones, etc.. Its is not to say that DSB won't work... but there are scientific, both biological/chemical evidence that they fail over time when trying with animals like SPS.

My fear, whilst willing to share what I've learnt, the person feels put down.. I was not.  I gave sensible opposing views... I'm not hitting at the person's passion... I share your passion and am respectful of your efforts(or lack of), I feel less incline to be offended by remarks, in turn, esp when they serve to correct. The trouble with such threads is that they ultimately thread on ppls toes... I don't know why(maybe because they achieved alot and anything different from their learned passion offends), and they do... This sniffles further dialog... believe me that last thing I want is to be known as starter of sorts.

promoting better reefing methods is indeed noble... lets hope that whats shared is correct, and best factual, woe if it be wrong...

You know, your previous Boxer dog avatar serves a better description of you than the canary.  Now pls don't go offended.

Hi Madmac,

I fully understand your points too. In fact, I feel that if we intend to keep the more demanding species of SPS such as the Acroporas, BB definitely will beat BSB hands down if we will to fully employ and maintian both methods to the fullest potential. This point was further supported by A. Calfo last night.

Your fear is not without ground, although I am still new in this hobby, I have seen countless new reefers preferring to accept dodgy methods just because they seems easier to follow or the proponent have better language capabilities. This situation is not proprietary to only SRC, even in forums such as RC we will often see such situation repeating itself over and over again.

Thus, I believe like everything else in this world - we just have to live with it.

I truly believes and respect your passion and am glad that I have another brother walk along the path of "Responsible Reefing".

With regarding to my avatar, the previous one is a Boston Terrier - my favorite dog. But since my nick is Gouldian - my favourite finch, I boh pian, have to use Gouldian Finch as my avatar. Anyway, it gives some reefers that doesn't agree with me to call me "Bird Man" without hurting me much.

[hotlemond]

seems that he emphasize alot on good water flow, especially at the behind tank. Perhaps this was part of his methotology for better maintaining DSB, but the success of DSB had been heavily debated in almost all reefkeeping forums with no absolute conclusion yet (period)