Are Deep Sand Beds, DSBs, dangerous to use in a marine aquarium?

[Amphiprionocellaris]

It doesn't work that way man..... You don't have hundreds of thousands of tiny mouths in the sand bed just waiting for you to feed the tank. They are sustaining themselves on the nutrients you added yesterday, last week, or even months ago.

It very much works that way; a healthy sand bed quickly consumes organic material, rather than acting as some sort of sponge that accumulates reactive matter, as is often stated about them. Why does it matter when a particular nutrient was added relative to when it was consumed? If the system is stable and mature, the net growth of free nutrients is zero regardless of residence time. If you want to argue that the biomass itself is an accumulation of nutrients, which some have wanted to do, then fine but again at maturity that biomass is not necessarily increasing.

But it doesn't "manage nutrients" the way many people believe it does. The whole DSB method is a way of holding nutrients within the system, increasing the nutrient content of the system, making the system more dirty, not more clean, making the system less hospitable to higher and more environmentally sensitive forms of life.

Why do you say these things, what is your evidence? Based on benthic ecology I can confidently say that sand beds *do* manage nutrients by both removing nitrogen into nitrogen gas and breaking large organic molecules into forms that leave the sand bed for scavenging or removal via biological uptake (e.g. By corals and zooxanthellae) or filtration. Coupled with aggressive filtration methods and a large population of corals, clams, etc, it is very easy to maintain both N and P well below the threshold levels for reef health, as well as maintain very rapid rates of growth. Nowhere does the system get "more dirty"; mine has crystal clear water and no algae. Nothing in that equation makes the system hospitable to higher life; indeed based on the relationships between energy flow and diversity, there is also a good argument to be made that in some ways the rapid nutrient cycling makes it more hospitable than without.

None of this is based on opinion; it's based on 20 years' experience involving hundreds of personal and commercial tanks, plus - more importantly - known science about sediment/benthic ecology from the primary literature and my own research. I would be happy to provide the dozens of papers specifically on this topic that have led me to my conclusions; they may be behind a paywall but usually the abstracts are open access.

 

[elegance coral]

EC,

You are doing that random dot connecting bit that TMZ talked about. For instance you pulled out two quotes from Joe and myself, without adding any commentary. Based on your comments in the overall thread, I expect your trying to make them out to be contradictory statements, yet they are in fact are not contradictory. We do know there are a level of nutrients and critters in the sediments of the reef, and we do know those same reef sediments are not accumulating and turning the reefs into mucky eutrophic zones

I'm connecting no random dots. I think you missed the point of what I was trying to say.

The reef sediments "are not accumulating and turning the reefs into mucky eutrophic zones" because the overall content is limited by the conditions found around healthy growing reefs.

We can not say that if the overall content of a Shemik style DSB was a problem we wouldn't have healthy coral reefs. Shemik style DSB's aren't typically found in close proximity to healthy coral reefs.

This is just one of his many articles.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...=8mSqFTKQZeqwrBhC5D9ASA&bvm=bv.71778758,d.aWw

In the article he has pictures of sediments. None of them were taken near healthy coral reefs. His DSB more closely resembles the sediments found in his pic's. One was taken from a temperate zone, one from "near shore and very poorly sorted", one "common in some tropical habitats, such as sea grass beds", another "common in lagoonal backwater areas protected from wave action".

The sand around healthy growing coral reefs typically consist of brand new sand produced by the reef itself. This sand is tossed back and forth with each tide change, and by the tropical storms that commonly move through. This keeps the sand moving and relatively clean. The smaller/lighter particles of organic material gets washed away to calmer zones. Like the estuary in the videos Paul posted, and the pic's in Shemik's article. These are the areas we typically find sediments that closely resemble what we call DSB's.

So, your statement, "If the overall content (including what's in the biomass and sediment) was such a problem, reefs wouldn't exist as we know them." isn't accurate. You're trying to connect "random dots". The overall content of a DSB is a problem in our systems, because we are trying to force a healthy coral reef to live with this elevated overall content, but it has little to do with a healthy growing coral reef in the wild. Such overall content isn't typically found in association with healthy coral reefs. It's found in estuaries, grass flats, and mangrove swamps.

You also seem to keep thinking all that tight recycling will turn a tank into an nuisance algae filled, due to crash system...while ignoring that not only does this not automatically happen in a DSB system, but it also happens quite regularly in every tank system ever known...so it's an argument that pertains to all equally

No. None of us have an accurate poll on tank crashes and the causes. That's not what I'm debating. The question was asked, "Are deep sand beds DSB's dangerous?" The answer to that is yes. I have simply been explaining how and why they're dangerous. There are many variables that can effect the extent of damages. I'm not ignoring anything, and I've stated many times in this thread that you can maintain a seemingly healthy system that contains a DSB. That doesn't change the fact that a DSB is dangerous and it's having a negative impact on the system. Even if it doesn't kill every single animal introduced to the system.

 

[Paul B]

PaulB mentioned Schimek and everyone who's done any research knows he's a big name in this hobby. What happened to him? Why hasn't he been more vocal in the hobby in recent times? Of course I am disregarding his website and the fact that he charges, what, $1 to answer questions

I know that Dr Schmek used to be on forums and a lot of people (including) me disagreed with him about his theories about DSBs. I still do. He does not have an old tank and as far as I know, never had (I could be wrong) To me this "hobby" is a lifetime endeavor and not just something to do for 10 or 20 years. To me a 10 year old tank is to young to even go through cycles or get very stable. It seems old to most 20 year olds but I remember the conditions my tank was in the first ten, twenty and thirty years and it changes over time. It is still changing so for me, a scientific experiment that lasts a couple of years means absolutely nothing. Do you think any of the microscopic creatures I added to my tank in 1971 from the East River are still in there re producing? I highly doubt that. I add new creatures and bacteria all the time. My "gravel" with the water constantly flowing through it seems extremely healthy to me because it is totally filled with tiny tube worms all the way down to the bottom glass. These creatures IMO help with the waste removal. I don't know how and I am sure someone has a scientific paper on it that was done after two weeks of research, but that doesn't matter. The fact is that I can stir up my gravel or even take it out and put it back if I wanted to and nothing would be affected. (except maybe my wife) Over the years I have re aquascaped dozens of times and in doing that I have disturbed the gravel to the point of practically removing it. I did remove it a couple of times basically to see what was growing under there. (Godzilla larvae I think)
Do that with a 40 year old DSB and see what happens. I am not trying to sell anyone on a RUGF, I like having the oldest tank on here, but to me a DSB is a silly invention and although I hate this phrase, a ticking time bomb. I know very well the smell of hydrogen sulfide and I don't want it in my tank, I don't want the possibility of it, I want to move my gravel as much as I want and my RUGF seems to keep my parameters where I want them. For about 35 years my nitrates measured about 10. That is with a UG filter and 5 water changes a year. No reactors or other means of nitrate reduction. My nitrates were going someplace even though I don't know where.
Now they are about 40 and I like them there as the corals are growing and shading each other as they should. My nitrates are high because virtually every paired fish I have including mandarins, pipefish, clown gobies, bangai cardinals, 23 year old fireclowns
and watchman gobies are spawning. That is because of health through proper feeding "and" I assume the RUGF which even if it is not helping, it is certainly not hurting my set up. To keep fish spawning as they should be doing all the time, you have to over feed. The corals "may" suffer a little but if they are, I don't notice it.
To me health is the key to this hobby and spawning fish is the best sign of a healthy tank as only the healthiest fish will spawn and if your paired fish are not spawning your tank is just barely existing and not healthy no matter what type of substrait you have.

In Paul's case though ; I think the secret is really the cucumber and the beer can.

And the mud I add a few times a year.

PS do you see any algae or detritus on my gravel that has been there since Nixon was President?

 

[Amphiprionocellaris]

The question was asked, "Are deep sand beds DSB's dangerous?" The answer to that is yes. I have simply been explaining how and why they're dangerous. There are many variables that can effect the extent of damages. I'm not ignoring anything, and I've stated many times in this thread that you can maintain a seemingly healthy system that contains a DSB. That doesn't change the fact that a DSB is dangerous and it's having a negative impact on the system. Even if it doesn't kill every single animal introduced to the system.

The thing is, they AREN'T intrinsically dangerous, and I've spent a lot of time explaining in detail why that's the case. Sure, if they stop functioning properly, they can lead to a system failure, as can a broken pump, skimmer, live rock (which ecologically functions in much the same way as sediments, but with slower nutrient transport due to lower amounts of biogenic irrigation). They DON'T intrinsically damage a tank, and there is no reason to label them "seemingly" healthy as if there is some sort of masking effect going on. I have not seen a shred of primary literature or scientific evidence to show that they are damaging and having a negative influence, and it would go against decades of study and documented beneficial effects to claim that they are.

The "fact" that a DSB is dangerous and having a negative impact is, quite simply, wrong. I'll give you that it - like any other method or piece of equipment - has the potential to fail if not properly established or maintained, but the claim that it intrinsically has negative impacts is not supported by empirical evidence.

 

[Amphiprionocellaris]

. I am not trying to sell anyone on a RUGF, I like having the oldest tank on here, but to me a DSB is a silly invention and although I hate this phrase, a ticking time bomb.

It's not so much an invention as an attempt to replicate nature in a different way. But why do you say it's a ticking time bomb? I'll agree that if a tank is starved with insufficient feeding and the benthic population dies, then yes a DSB can become trouble waiting to happen, but I don't think it's fair to assume that will happen in all cases, as the "ticking time bomb hypothesis" seems to claim. My oldest personal tank was 15 years old when it was destroyed, and still going strong with regular clownfish and coral spawning, and I fully expect it would still be alive today doing just as well if the fire had not hit.

Also, most benthic ecology studies are ongoing and have lasted since the very early 1980's when the LTER was established specifically to address the necessity of long-term ecological research rather than short, multi-year studies. Laboratory experiments, when run, are run months to years depending on the time scales of the processes involved (and to get information on specific things like proportionality constants needed to explain the long-term observations in more mechanistic detail), but most of what we know of benthic ecology is indeed long-term, so I don't know if it's appropriate to just throw all of that out on an argument of time scale. I understand your skepticism of the science, and it's not necessarily unjustified, but I felt I needed to point the long-term research out.

 

[saf1]

No. None of us have an accurate poll on tank crashes and the causes. That's not what I'm debating.

Herein lies the problem. There is no accurate data as you suggest. Statistically limited at best or anecdotal. I also know you said that isn't what you are debating but you did state the answer is yes with a reason.

I believe the other camp is simply stating remove DSB from the question and the answer is different. Skimmer, pellets, water changes, water movement, or any other thing we use to maintain a aquarium.

It isn't correct to ask who here has a 43 year old tank when someone just started. Yet if they have a DSB, spawning fish, shrimp, and corals look good is that success? To some it would appear so yet some would argue that it is a ticking time bomb only to fail in X amount of time. Heck, someone told me last week my tank would crash if I didn't run a skimmer yet on the main page everyone is going gaga over a tank that doesn't run one. Double standard maybe?

Seems like a circular debate to me.

 

[Paul B]

Also, most benthic ecology studies are ongoing and have lasted since the very early 1980's when the LTER was established specifically to address the necessity of long-term ecological research rather than short, multi-year studies

Studies on fish tanks have been going on since the ancient Egyptians, I meant on the "same tank, long term". I have read some of Dr Schmek's articles on DSBs and he states on some of them the organisms were studied for 90 days. I have stuff in my refrigerator longer than that. Organisms in fish tanks only have a lifespan of a few months or a year, they need to keep reproducing and I just can't see them living "happily" in a place with reduced oxygen. I remember when I used to ride home on the Long Island Rail Road and they had a smoking car. I couldn't stay in there for five minutes because I craved oxygen. (and I don't smoke although sometimes I am smoking hot)
Anyway, I am not as smart as you college types so as I was talking about smoking, I will go and watch my pipefish :rolleye1:

 

[Paul B]

To some it would appear so yet some would argue that it is a ticking time bomb only to fail in X amount of time.

I think a tank should "never" fail. It should be a self maintaining eco system that should remain viable with little help from us. That is what the bacteria should do even though I realize many of us use devices such as reactors and other media to reduce substances that our bacteria get paid to do for us. (besides changing untold amounts of water) If a tank is mortal, then something is wrong. In the years my tank has been running the power has gone out dozens of times, sometimes lasting a week. Nothing bad happened to my tank even in the days before I had my generator. I am not sure the substrate had anything to do with that, I am just stating a fact. I have also had a very large carpet anemone die in there turning the tank into a sewer, also nothing happened. Once about 20 years ago I used to have an urchin collection business where I used SCUBA to collect local urchins. I had to many and put 24 of them in my reef where they all must have heard Barry White and they all spawned at the same time. The tank looked like a vat of Half and Half. I couldn't see one inch through it. I cleared it with a diatom filter and nothing happened. That is why I see my system as a bullet proof system where I don't have to worry about such occurrences. I am not sure how a DSB would hold up under those conditions or if scientific study even tested those scenario's.

 

[saf1]

I am not sure how a DSB would hold up under those conditions or if scientific study even tested those scenario's.

They would hold up no differently if all things are equal. I know you are a diver so you know what is on or around the various reefs just has much as what is at unreachable limits by man.

Few pages back I think I said the onus is on the reef keeper to promote longevity in our hobby. That would include precautions to handle power outages for a week or so. I learned that the hard way while out on vacation and not having enough top off water. California politics back in the early 2000 mixed with corporate America equaled several power outages. Mix in with heat, lack of air condition, and pre-planning on my part equals a dead aquarium when I get home.

Ironically enough do you want to know what survived my only crash (which was my fault by the way)? My DSB, rock, and of course Zoa's which are in both of my aquariums today. Again, it comes down to the hobbyist in my opinion(which I believe you are not arguing either). It is 5 somewhere so I'm going to have an adult beverage.

 

[tmz]

To be clear; I don't think all of the folks here identify with camps. I don't.

I'm not a proponent or opponent of deep sand beds,shallow sand beds, rugf,bare bottoms,mud etc. I am always trying to find new ways to improve things and combine them . I'm interested in accurate statements of fact and not leaping extrapolations and opinions posing as fact. Anecdotal experinces are useful too but you have to make a judgement about the accuracy of the observation and the conclusions drawn from it. Knowing the details we can know is useful in making informed decisions about which techniques to choose to meet the objectives individual's set fort their tanks .
FWIW, my paired fish( a bangai pair, 6 amphiprion pairs and 5 hippocamus erectus( seahorse) pairs breed regularly and nitrate remains low(0.2ppm) despite heavy feeding. But then I don't have any 43 year old fish yet,several ten year olds though.

IME, many sps are sensitive to high nitrate and I personally think 40ppm is rough on them.

 

[Fredfish]

It doesn't work that way man..... QUOTE]
Well, unless it does.

It certainly does in rain forests. It certainly does in reef ecosystems.

There are people, Bill being the most recent to post here, who have successfully kept deep sand beds for years without issue or major interventions. I dunno, maybe Bill and those others don't exist.

 

[howaboutme]

People stop posting on various internet forums for all sort of personal reasons. To assume they stop posting because some idea they espoused does or doesn't work is simply assuming...and you know what the say about the word assume

So this is my assumption...that this hobby is all about assumptions.

But seriously, it's not just the forums, it's everywhere. Articles, speaking, etc...Sure, every once in a while one may pop up but it's rather striking that non of them have a big contemporary influence on this hobby anymore. Surely they can't be satisfied to have proxies like you and others for defense? I think this is huge!

For rather newish hobbyist like myself (1.5 years) and with probably a more open mind than the established individual, I am sick of hearing conclusions based on scientific studies, be it 90 days or 5 years. I much enjoy hearing (I think it's) billsreef's DSB is 10 years and going strong because....or another person saying my DSB killed my tank because....or another saying BB is better because...., etc. The individual experience is what matters the most and we can make decisions based on that. Like I said before, a scientific conclusion goes out the door as soon as 1 person has a different experience, nevermind that our homes are not exactly a controlled environment.

Your 300G tank is not the ocean. We can't recreate the ocean. Let's stop using that as an example.

Now..anyone want to let me borrow $1 to get Schimeck to talk?

 

[Paul B]

(which I believe you are not arguing either). It is 5 somewhere so I'm going to have an adult beverage.

I never argue on fish forums and it is 1:30 here in the afternoon so it's time for a Harvey Wallbanger.

 

[Amphiprionocellaris]

For rather newish hobbyist like myself (1.5 years) and with probably a more open mind than the established individual, I am sick of hearing conclusions based on scientific studies, be it 90 days or 5 years. I much enjoy hearing (I think it's) billsreef's DSB is 10 years and going strong because....or another person saying my DSB killed my tank because....or another saying BB is better because...., etc. The individual experience is what matters the most and we can make decisions based on that. Like I said before, a scientific conclusion goes out the door as soon as 1 person has a different experience, nevermind that our homes are not exactly a controlled environment.

The problem with individual anecdotes is that there are so many variables involved in what makes a system successful that it's a stretch to apply them to a different scenario without perfectly replicating the tank in question. Any time you're getting into the "because" of things - which is what we really need to know - you have to invoke the science of it, so I don't think it's really possible to gain much by anecdote alone and ignore conclusions based on scientific fact. You have to be careful how broadly certain facts are applied, but personally I think ignoring science in favor of anecdote is not a good way to refine methodology.

Disclaimer: of course, I've dedicated my life to studying the science and ecology of our tanks and of the coastal ocean in general; obviously I would not have done so if I didn't feel very strongly about the benefits of knowing how they work.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

For rather newish hobbyist like myself (1.5 years) and with probably a more open mind than the established individual, I am sick of hearing conclusions based on scientific studies, be it 90 days or 5 years. I much enjoy hearing (I think it's) billsreef's DSB is 10 years and going strong because....or another person saying my DSB killed my tank because....or another saying BB is better because...., etc. The individual experience is what matters the most and we can make decisions based on that.
)

I decided to delete my reply because I expect you wouldn't appreciate how much crapola scientists have had to correct in this hobby, but I find that sort of comment really depressing.

 

[Amphiprion]

For rather newish hobbyist like myself (1.5 years) and with probably a more open mind than the established individual, I am sick of hearing conclusions based on scientific studies, be it 90 days or 5 years. I much enjoy hearing (I think it's) billsreef's DSB is 10 years and going strong because....or another person saying my DSB killed my tank because....or another saying BB is better because...., etc. The individual experience is what matters the most and we can make decisions based on that. Like I said before, a scientific conclusion goes out the door as soon as 1 person has a different experience, nevermind that our homes are not exactly a controlled environment.

I am sorry you feel this way. I am not sure what led you to this conclusion, but I hope it is a mindset that some of the very dedicated folks here can eventually change .

I decided to delete my reply because I expect you wouldn't appreciate how much crapola scientists have had to correct in this hobby, but I find that sort of comment really depressing.

 

[howaboutme]

I decided to delete my reply because I expect you wouldn't appreciate how much crapola scientists have had to correct in this hobby, but I find that sort of comment really depressing.

I thought scientists shouldn't assume? You should have kept your other reply. It was more representative of you and I would have appreciated more. See below.

I am sorry you feel this way. I am not sure what led you to this conclusion, but I hope it is a mindset that some of the very dedicated folks here can eventually change

The point I was trying to make is that all of the science jargon used can only take the average Joe so far. I understand that a scientific response is needed if the question or comment is based on science (which I guess is part of the debate) but it would be extremely helpful to explain things rather simply. I know it's easier said than done. I would suspect others feel this way but just don't speak up. Just because the topic is "advanced" doesn't mean the dialogue has to be. I hope I am being more clear and apologize that my previous post was a bit too ambiguous.

Finally, even though anecdotes are considered opinion in this context, we can't dismiss them as being significant. Forums like this exist because of anecdotes. (Okay, maybe not the reef chemistry section.)

Now..back to the originally scheduled program.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

If you are looking for anecdotes, I kept a deep sand bed of fine oolitic aragonite for several years.

I didn't think it was doing anything good or bad, so I removed it to replace it with large rock filled refugia (44 gallon Brute cans), lit on the top to grow macroalgae.

 

[rounder45]

But it doesn't "manage nutrients" the way many people believe it does. The whole DSB method is a way of holding nutrients within the system, increasing the nutrient content of the system, making the system more dirty, not more clean, making the system less hospitable to higher and more environmentally sensitive forms of life.

The nutrient content of a reef is astoundingly high... But the water is clean... Long as the water in our tanks is filtered and remains clean, what's the dillema? The waste gets recycled via different organisms eventually and the filtration and husbandry maintain water quality while it is happening. Our mechanical and physical(water changes) filtration are like the tide that washes the dirty water away.

 

[billsreef]

Which is the same thing that happens in a Shemik style DSB.

Not all of us running DSB are doing it Shimek style muck and never touch

But it doesn't "manage nutrients" the way many people believe it does.

Quite true, however, it seems the folks that think DSB's are ticking time bombs, or other means to failure, are the ones not understanding the processes that do occur.

The whole DSB method is a way of holding nutrients within the system, increasing the nutrient content of the system, making the system more dirty, not more clean, making the system less hospitable to higher and more environmentally sensitive forms of life.

I think a couple of us in this thread have proven that isn't true. I've grown and fragged all sorts of corals, spawned fish repeatedly, plenty of coraline algae growth, in general had all sorts of thriving reef life....all with a DSB

I'm connecting no random dots. I think you missed the point of what I was trying to say.

Not missed, just disagreeing

The question was asked, "Are deep sand beds DSB's dangerous?" The answer to that is yes. I have simply been explaining how and why they're dangerous.

Quite frankly, DSB's are no more dangerous (actually perhaps less) than any other method of reef keeping out there. The explanations you come up with are either incorrect, or apply equally to every other method used.

I don't know how and I am sure someone has a scientific paper on it that was done after two weeks of research,

Doubtful, I don't know of any proper peer reviewed published marine science research papers that are based on a mere two weeks research. Most have a year or many years into the research, far from quick and off the cuff.

The thing is, they AREN'T intrinsically dangerous, and I've spent a lot of time explaining in detail why that's the case.

Exactly, and Ampiprionocellaris's explanations are spot on.

Organisms in fish tanks only have a lifespan of a few months or a year, they need to keep reproducing and I just can't see them living "happily" in a place with reduced oxygen.

You need to stop thinking only from the perspective an air breathing human The adaptations of critters to live in all sorts of environments that we humans look at as inhospitable are simply amazing.

BTW I've had some worms in my DSB's that were definitely a few years old. Peanut worms in particular come to mind.

It doesn't work that way man.....

Well, unless it does.

It certainly does in rain forests. It certainly does in reef ecosystems.

There are people, Bill being the most recent to post here, who have successfully kept deep sand beds for years without issue or major interventions. I dunno, maybe Bill and those others don't exist.

If I don't exist, than I'm figment of your imagination. In which case you need a better imagination

Surely they can't be satisfied to have proxies like you and others for defense? I think this is huge!

Aside from not being anyone's proxy, I'm pretty sure some of those "big" names would not want an RC moderator being considered their proxy

Now..anyone want to let me borrow $1 to get Schimeck to talk?

No problem. However, you might not be thanking me after :lol:

The point I was trying to make is that all of the science jargon used can only take the average Joe so far. I understand that a scientific response is needed if the question or comment is based on science (which I guess is part of the debate) but it would be extremely helpful to explain things rather simply. I know it's easier said than done.

Us science types posting are trying to get these concepts across to the average Joe. If someone's not understanding something, always ask for clarification.

The nutrient content of a reef is astoundingly high... But the water is clean... Long as the water in our tanks is filtered and remains clean, what's the dillema? The waste gets recycled via different organisms eventually and the filtration and husbandry maintain water quality while it is happening. Our mechanical and physical(water changes) filtration are like the tide that washes the dirty water away.

Well said in so few words :thumbsup: