DSBs & long term viability, the evidence against..

[iantoh]

hi everyone, and especially bros tuan, gouldian, blueheaven and madmac,

no tuan, the comments are directed particularly at you. i just meant to clarify that i meant to say DSBs do not necessarily require lots of minute life (i.e. does not mean that no copepods will not work), and also that, as i maintained throughout this thread, that different systems should be employed in tandem, and for us to expand out collective knowledge as opposed to engendering different camps of different systems in debate. you see, i began the hobby years ago on dodgy advice from both lfs shop owners and reefers who have limited experience but go on to assert many things in very absolutist ways. like people who say you must have DSB, or you must have chiller, or must buy Beckett, etc. and i think these absolutist comments mislead the impressionable or greenhorned. furthermore, as my posts must have revealed, i am quite passionate about reefing, so i just wished to balance your seemingly negative views of DSB. i sincerely hope i didnt offend you bro tuan.

also, i think sand clumping is far more likely to be a result of cyanobacteria and algae proliferation than either calcium precipitation or calcium chloride solidification as most of these lumps, like in my old tank, may be dissolved in household bleach. if the bonds were calcified, they would not dissolve in bleach, least far as i understand. think bro tuan can help enlighten me on the calcification part.

lastly, i think DSBs are useful, but they must be employed along with its periphery conditions, for example, adequate water flow, some infauna to colonize the sand, and i think most importantly, appropriate stocking. in singapore, we see too often examples of overstocking, like three tangs in a two footer when even one is possibly pushing it.

alamak, i didnt remember bout the calfo seminar last night. was preoccupied plus no kaki to go with or remind me. sigh. those who went perhaps can share with us somemore ya.

cheers all,

ian

[tuan]

Not sure how it came about but I'm certainly not against DSB (or any methods in fact). I think you've misread my posts somewhere, but I can't be against DSB when I'm keeping a very large DSB myself, much larger than the majority of reefers out there. Believe me, adding 8" worth of sand to cover 46 square feet is a serious commitment!

My system is far from being polarized into specific camps of must have this and must have that. I make use of all the methods and try to keep them in balance. I have strong skimming, deep sand beds, strong flow, algae for nutrient export.. everything!

To expand on the sand clumping:-

First example:-

If you take a bucket of sand and keep on adding to it a very fine dust like particles, eventually the gaps between the grains on the surface becomes compacted and blocked with the fines.

So if you have an in-tank DSB, not enough flow, not enough infauna, then the detritus will do exactly the same to the sand and make the first inch or so layer become so compacted that water cannot flow to the lower layer.

Second example:-

Take a bucket of sand (especially aragonite based sand) and tank water. Drip into lime water (Kalk). What happens is the calcium ions will crystalize on the surface of the grains of sand, and eventually, turn the top surface solid.

This is what happens when the DSB in the tank do not have the fauna to gently stir the surface and break up the bonding between the sand grains. Especially when lime water is added incorrectly or the Alk level is pushed and kept very high (many reefers keep Alk at way above NSW in the race to get growth).

Thirdly:

The action of the bateria coating and fauna on the sand itself can dissolve some of the surface (e.g. waste can be acidic), and then re-crystalize. So overtime, if not disturbed, can cause the grains to bond.

So there are many factors which make the top of the DSB becoming a barrier preventing water diffusion, and so stop the DSB from functioning.

[iantoh]

hi tuan.. thats informative. thanks. guess we all ought to add more infauna to our DSBs then.

cheers,

ian

[iantoh]

hi fellow reefers, especially bro tuan, apologies first if any of my comments have been misplaced ya. i'm wondering if we can set up a collective experiment to adjudicate the various benefits to the different systems, and also whether hybrid systems are better, etc. it might be fun for us to set up two nanos or something and periodically monitor their parameters. all the same, i think that all our mini-reefs require lots of attention and diligence. the coral reefs of nature are diverse and complex and have the entire ocean's water body to buffer its wastes, so clearly we, and our equipment, must work harder to achieve similar results. think all of us here must spend a great deal of time on our tanks anyways so either system you prefer, it will still require work, just some less, some more.

some off the point notes:

i read in Time magazine and the japanese technological conference website that in osaka i think, during the world tech conference, they exhibited a tank that held both freshwater and marine fishes in the same water. something achieved by the infusion of nano bubbles invisible to the ###### eye that allows both types of fish to breathe in freshwater. isnt that amazing?! anyone know more about that? perhaps sometime in the future we might be able to keep reef fishes in freshwater with the nano-bubble chambers.

also, bro tuan, someone mentioned youre in the uk? there long term ah? lets have a gathering le! the reefers on arofanatics routinely have barbeques and such, and the yanks and brits often have frag meets. think we could certainly have more of those in our community, lest our pasar malam forums become solely auction type forums devoid of sentimentality and cordial exchanges. i'd personally like to meet more reefers and make more reefing friends too so tell me what you all think ya.

cheers all,

ian

[bluesky]

Hi Fellow Reefers,

Its been very informative & the value of information drilled into details outlined in such a professional manner makes this thread one of the best threads I could ever ask for. I have enjoyed every bit of it. Everyone of you has contributed somewhat to my quest for better reef keeping. This also includes our BBT friends like Madmac, who hopefully can share with us more of his reefkeeping in BBT in the near future

To both Bro Tuan & Ian, you guys have inspired us all by having such healthy exchange of opinions & knowledges - Strong, firm & polite!! setting good example for reefers who are new like me . Kudo!!

[lightningstrike]

but there are scientific, both biological/chemical evidence that they fail over time when trying with animals like SPS.

Yes....... and so potentially they did........ but as far as i can see, often negligence or failure to understand the functionability of DSB points to these failures.

at the same time, there r also living real life examples that will point to u that every single inch of DSB works.

what's the point of debating who's absolutely right or wrong? IMHO, there r no absolute answers. hv an open mind.

[Reefaholic]

Well said lightningstrike.

There are proof that DSB, SSB, VSSB and barebottom works wonder. It just how you do your hubandry on your water quality, flow, lighting.

These 3 are the basics.

[madmac]

Yes....... and so potentially they did........ but as far as i can see, often negligence or failure to understand the functionability of DSB points to these failures.

at the same time, there r also living real life examples that will point to u that every single inch of DSB works.

what's the point of debating who's absolutely right or wrong? IMHO, there r no absolute answers. hv an open mind.

No. The potential for that to happen wasn't there then. The failure of DSBs are just starting to come about... it was widely followed trend before, the risk weren't known... yes again in spite of the watchfulness of the owner...

H2S formation wasn't well documented then,

Sandbed fuzing together wasn't known then,

PO4 leaking out wasn't known,...

Dr Ron wrote his DSB theory in 1998, if I'm not wrong.

Reefers who are committed to the hobby, time, money building their reefs didn't know what to expect because the negatives weren't documented, except that over time, things weren't turning out as they ought to. Corals were starting to receed at the base, showing signs of derogation, there were many kinds of parasites that came abt later... the astute ones reacted well if they were watchful enough and lucky that it didn't happen fast.. the unlucky ones were either too careless or jus unfortunate that it happen so fast.

LS, if someone were to ask this board abt the viability of DSB 1 yr ago, he would hv been laughed away... the results for those who kept DSB are just starting to come about.... and reefers in RC are abandoning DSBs in favour of other methods.

Basically they are a nutrient sink, becoming too dirty because of the detrital matter accumulated over-time, which alters the balance of bacteria living in their proper stratification layers, which leads to all kinds of fluxes in the SB. One loses complete control when you have a DSB, unless your corals are tolerant.. at best your keeping another galaxy of animals to support the animals you really want to keep, at worst, well...

Yes you're correct... its not abt whos right or wrong, but we owe a responsibility to God or Mother Nature if you like, to care for His creations, in the best of our talents, within the constrains given. You wouldn't be spending time here if you really didn't care.

[lightningstrike]

Dr Ron wrote his DSB theory in 1998, if I'm not wrong.

Reefers who are committed to the hobby, time, money building their reefs didn't know what to expect because the negatives weren't documented, except that over time, things weren't turning out as they ought to. Corals were starting to receed at the base, showing signs of derogation, there were many kinds of parasites that came abt later... the astute ones reacted well if they were watchful enough and lucky that it didn't happen fast.. the unlucky ones were either too careless or jus unfortunate that it happen so fast.

and Eric Borneman wrote this in Nov 2004:

"I consider "long-term" in aquariums to be on the order of years. The debates being mentioned above have occurred within the past year, and already fierce proponents extol the relative benefits and detriments of one way or the other. My view is that time and adequate experimentation and measurement will tell the tale. To me, having a 6" deep sand bed for eight years with no measurable nitrate or phosphate and no regular or intentional water changes says something. I have outstanding coral growth and great coloration. In fact, my tank has never looked better. I'm keeping the vodka for myself."

Reference: http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2004-11/eb/feature/index.htm

I'm keeping my vodka to myself 2.

LS, if someone were to ask this board abt the viability of DSB 1 yr ago, he would hv been laughed away... the results for those who kept DSB are just starting to come about.... and reefers in RC are abandoning DSBs in favour of other methods.

i wld hv raised the qns. and for the record, i still do know and see reefers in RC that hv DSBs.

Basically they are a nutrient sink, becoming too dirty because of the detrital matter accumulated over-time, which alters the balance of bacteria living in their proper stratification layers, which leads to all kinds of fluxes in the SB. One loses complete control when you have a DSB, unless your corals are tolerant.. at best your keeping another galaxy of animals to support the animals you really want to keep, at worst, well...

IMHO, this will be a yes and no answer again. I wld strongly believe that one will only loses complete control when there is a lack of maintenance and understanding as to in how DSB works.

Yes you're correct... its not abt whos right or wrong, but we owe a responsibility to God or Mother Nature if you like, to care for His creations, in the best of our talents, within the constrains given. You wouldn't be spending time here if you really didn't care.

I'm spending time in here coz i wld like fella hobbyists here to keep an open mind on this subject. there's absolutely no right or wrong answer here at this point of time. IMHO, irregardless of which method u choose to follow, if it is working well for u, so be it. if it's not, ask urself why not and seek other options.

"if u had never asked, u'll never learn. such is the rule of the thumb, the blind leading the blind."

Cheers with a glass of vodka.

[RAV-65]

Actually, why not deploy the DSB in another sump connect to the main sump like mentioned by Mr Anthony Calfo? Den the DSB Sump can be disconnected to have the sand changed out if u are worried that it's becoming a nutrient sink...

[AlfaRomeo]

For a DSB to become effective, that area needs to be the same or larger than the main tank bottom (generally). Remote DSB will not work cos a vast majority of us have sumps that are only a fraction of what the display tank is.

[scarab]

What RAV meant was another separate sump other than your main sump........of course provided you have space for that.

[weisoon]

Actually, why not deploy the DSB in another sump connect to the main sump like mentioned by Mr Anthony Calfo? Den the DSB Sump can be disconnected to have the sand changed out if u are worried that it's becoming a nutrient sink...

Don't mind me asking......change a new sand bed after found leaking PO4, NO3 climbing etc? But the DSB will be effective only after a few months if I am not wrong and what will happen at the mean time waiting for the DSB to mature....the PO4 and NO3 will climb even higher and life stock all brown out and die possibly? Unless one has another standby tank that is still working fine and transfer all the livestock over. One cannot get a instant functioning DSB.

Why not start it right from the beiginning or maintain it right in the first place.

[madmac]

I think the remote/sump DSB is one of the better ways to using as compared to having directly under your LR in the maintank. You are diversifying the risk, if in doubt, you can shut it down, without affecting the maintank, thus it functions like a canister filter, allowing one to maintain it periodically...

Any cleaned SB(even if its done quarterly) is better than one that hasn't been clean for a couple of years.

Weisoon, bacteria colonizes very quickly, even in a sanitized SB, IMHO, I think its in a couple of weeks at most. if cleaned with old SW, the bacteria doesn't die, the SB can be used right away.

[tuan]

and reefers in RC are abandoning DSBs in favour of other methods.

Actually, there are a huge number of reefers on RC that just have to be on the "right band wagon" whatever that is. They jump on in droves and follow a leader without question or understanding. They jump off in droves on to the next fad...

Two /three years ago it was the DSB club, you know "I have a DSB and I'm proud of it.. neh neh nah nah". Search teams spread across the states hunting for that elusive Sanddown sand... Ebay bidding going through the roof for a bag of sand! Just dump them it lads.. 6inches ought to do it, simple!

Then now, "I've been BB for months now and I'm wearing the badge proudly"... yet another band wagon. Have a search for 'Starboard' and see what I mean.. everybody has got to have a 'Starboard' now if you want to be in the club. There are crazy guys trying to ship 8 feet worth of a piece of plastic around the world!

May be I'll start another fad and see... say, Mylar reef! My frag tank sits on a piece of Mylar foil to reflect the light back up, wow, look! Double the brightness with T5

[blueheaven]

Yah I somehow agree with that. People come and go very easily as most do not want to bother about exploring further. Its somehow like a formula though, people think when others dump sand and manage to keep nice, growing corals and healthy fishes, they can too when they dump sand. But most of the time, the background work is not described and ths oftens misleads others.

But we cannot blame them as we have the herding instinct. Have you seen people queueing for the same thing and not wanting to queue up too?

[iantoh]

hahah. hey tuan. thats so true. its the same way with corals and the fads that seem to come and go periodically. all it takes is for someone to post some glorious photo of a certain coral, and suddenly, everyone wants one. its so human. like the ric yuma or florida thing going on now that allows lfs shop owners to price single polyps at such high prices. just think back to their prices two years back. even actinodosas are like $5 per polyp now when they used to go for bout $10 for a rock full of them. and like anthony calfo recently wrote, on advance aquarist i think, this price inflation relates purely to consumer trends. the largely third world collectors of the corals which end up in our tanks receive peanuts for braving the dangers of diving and hand collection whilst it it the end retailers that profit largely. i think we need to cultivate more responsibility to our hobby, and exercise more individual discernment in our response to each upcoming fad.

i thought of adding mirrors on the outside of the sides of my tank to help reflect light but have put it off thus far. hearing of your mylar foil makes me think about getting down to doing that. what do you bros think? anyone tried mirrors on the side of their tanks? i'm thinking that glass has reflective and refractive properties already and adding mirrors to the non-viewing sides might be overdoing it. by the way, are mylar's metal in nature?

cheers,

ian

[blueheaven]

I prefer keeping a sparkling clean sandbed to reflect the light

But regarding mirrors, its a nice thing to try though

[tuan]

Ha haa.. though I'd throw in a 'brand wagon' to see who bites! Mylar is just reflective plastic sheet, the stuff they use in hydroponic (aka drug boys) to reflect light. It's plastic and 95% reflective. You can use it to line your hood for example.

Here's more: http://www.growell.co.uk/p/0309/Mylar_Refl...e_Sheeting.html

I use some to line the bottom, back and sides of my frag grow out tank to reflect the light back in. It's only effective if you keep the glass clean though

[weisoon]

Weisoon, bacteria colonizes very quickly, even in a sanitized SB, IMHO, I think its in a couple of weeks at most. if cleaned with old SW, the bacteria doesn't die, the SB can be used right away.

er.......thought we are talking about DSB for Phosphate & Nitrate removal, not Ammonia & Nitrite.

[madmac]

Ah ok, I see where the confusion is now... the PO4 is the bacteria(animal) and NO3 is the phyto(plant)... the saying that SB are great sinks is because of its ability to store PO4 thru the living bacteria and the NO3 (taken up by phyto) within the SB. Thats why they register zero for so long a time... the thicker the SB, the more you can sink in(giving the mistaken impression that SB actually de-nitrify). This leak of PO4/NO3 is actually a leak of bacteria/phyto, thats where the term 'soup' comes from , ...nutritious clear soup in the water column, giving you water soluble PO4 and NO3. Its all about bacteria.

[blueheaven]

Actually the thicker the sandbed, the lesser oxygen can diffuse in, the more chances of creating an anaerobic zone. And an anaerobic zone has the heterotrophic anaerobic bacteria which converts nitrate to ammonium through ammonification. Yes, you do get lower nitrates but you got a whole lot of ammonium

The leakage I believe is due to the fact that cyano grows in the sandbed itself. As cyano is nitrogen fixing, it will convert the nitrogen to fertilizers for it to use which in this case is nitrates. As excess nitrates are produced, this excess leeches out into the water column and contribute to the bulk nitrate levels. Another hypothesis I made about phosphate is that as detritus accumulates in the sandbed, there are not enough infauna to consume them and as they are left there, phosphate seems to leech into the bulk water column.

In my opinion, I cannot see how a sandbed can be like a "sponge" which can be a sink for nutrients. The most possible reason is improper care which leads to these problems arising

[iantoh]

hi everyone!

think our discussion is really lively- good. in response to madmac and blueheaven, i incline more towards blueheaven's views in that i do not see "how a sandbed can be like a sponge which can be a sink for nutrients." the entire rationale behind a DSB is to create possibly anoxic regions by which bacteria that process nitrates into nitrogen and oxygen can proliferate. the accumulation of phosphates and of nitrates within any tank ought not to be attributed to the DSB system. nitrates arise because of either excreted wastes or uneated organics that then decompose within a tank. nitrates will be produced whether or not you have a DSB without proper skimming. the Berlin system aims to remove organics before it even breaks down, undercutting the entire nitrogen cycle. phosphates on the other hand, along with sulfides which are poisonous, will accumulate in live rocks as much as they will in DSBs. as bro Tuan quipped, and i'm sure youll probably have observed before, if you chip or break a piece of live rock, whether fresh from the ocean or from your tank, the centre areas will be black and absolutely putrid smelling. thats the sulfides accumulating in the deeper anoxic regions within the liverock. and thats why liverocks contribute to the denitrification processes within marine tanks. if the suggestion is that sulfides, phosphates, and nitrates will be caused by DSBs and that the sulfides may leech back out into the system, then honestly, the likelihood is that the risk between this leeching is similar between liverocks and a DSB. pls do understand that the DSB system does not ask you to over agitate its sand bed in the same way that liverocks do not court you to break them up. digging up a DSB will render similar consequences to breaking up your live rocks and uncovering their blackened centers inside your tank. DSBs should not have too much burrowing life that may then risk compromising the DSB. if you have the whole four inches of sand as a DSB requires, and not like the usual one or two inches that most reefers who claim they have DSBs employ, then i can hardly think of any critters that have not just the curiosity to, but also the capacity to dig so deep. thats alot of weight you know. worms will hardly cause much bother unless they are too numerous, and sand sifting gobies and dragonets will hardly move an inch of the sand, and even then only in small areas where they assert their territoriality. the anoxic region in the DSB is meant to remain as it is! anoxic and undisturbed insofar as to allow the oxygen-averse bacteria that convert nitrates back into nitrogen and nitrates to survive.

pls do consider the DSB system as it is meant to be employed, and in its entirety. it is the closest replication of nature's ways in our artificial reefs, and it achieves numerous benefits. as a fellow bro quoted earlier, eric bourneman has achieved success with his own personal reef tank utilizing a DSB for more than a decade. likewise, decade long DSBs are on display at numerous public aquaria such as the monteray bay aquarium. this is not to suggest DSBs are enough on their own. for the overstocked tanks that many reefers keep, efficient skimming will be necessary too, and the Berlin system is superb. but all these different systems should be a means to serve us reefers- for us to utilize them in tandem, to hybridize our systems- rather than have our tanks subordinate to the systems itself.

cheers,

ian

[madmac]

Actually the thicker the sandbed, the lesser oxygen can diffuse in, the more chances of creating an anaerobic zone. And an anaerobic zone has the heterotrophic anaerobic bacteria which converts nitrate to ammonium through ammonification. Yes, you do get lower nitrates but you got a whole lot of ammonium

Thats eutrophic conditions for you and in nature, DSB can go miles down. To assume thats happens in our tanks is .....

eu(truly) trophic (nutritious)

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

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

The leakage I believe is due to the fact that cyano grows in the sandbed itself. As cyano is nitrogen fixing, it will convert the nitrogen to fertilizers for it to use which in this case is nitrates. As excess nitrates are produced, this excess leeches out into the water column and contribute to the bulk nitrate levels.

bh, its not cyano lah. If cyano is N fixing, then it shouldn't need NO3, no?

again eutrophic:

• Water with high phytoplankton biomass. Chlorophyll-a concentrations exceed 10 mg m- 3...

www.wetlabs.com/glossary.htm

.... Fluorescence attributed to chlorophyll-containing organisms. In the ocean these organisms are phytoplankton, which represent the first level of the ocean food chain.

The chief NO3 reducing agent is phyto in our tanks. Whats needed to culture phyto. Does our tanks have it. Its not the DSB's anaerobic layer. Tank DSB don't do de-nitirification.

[apollo]

Hi Guys

Am new to marine and am reading as much as i could on DSB.

However, it seems in the long run it is best not to have it unless yu can improvise it.

Attached is a link tht discusses the improvision. I wonder anybody have followed it closely and care to comment?

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthre...25&pagenumber=1

Honestly i think this method schud wrk fine for me.