Are Deep Sand Beds, DSBs, dangerous to use in a marine aquarium?
- Thread starter JPMagyar
- Start date
one clownfish
Member
I consider it one because you can't kill GSP and whatever zoo that is. My Emp. Angel ate everything that had any color. Again, I can't believe I'm going to post this but here it goes. I've never shown ANYONE these pictures and I didn't let anyone see my tank for months either. All of this happened in 3-4 days after removing my DSB and its been almost a year of trying to get it back.
one clownfish
Member
I replaced my 72'' (8) bulb t5 fixture with a DIY led fixture and at first, I thought that was the problem. I took down the led and put the t5 back up and still, same problem. I finally have things somewhat back on track after a year and well over a thousand gallons of water changes later. I was afraid of putting the sand back in because it would be to many things at one time and cause a complete crash. Even though I'm sure a lot of people would call this a "complete crash", I don't. I didnt lose ANY fish, mushroom or whatever zoa's those are. I now have (3) 10'' clamp on 40watt CFL's for lighting. Putting the tank in the wall was another huge mistake so I'll be moving it sometime in the next couple of months. I'll be adding my DSB and Led fixture again. I'm trying to make a mixed reef. I won't cook my rock because whatever kept my tank limping along through all this mess is a good thing. I'm ok with the GHA because my tangs eat every bit of it.
one clownfish
Member
Exactly but by removing a little at a time you risk putting all the rotting material throughout the system.
ME2003
Premium Member
Before discussing the issues of deep sand beds you should review
Robert Toonen, Ph.D. article.
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2005/6/aafeature
If you want to design an experiment you have to limit your variables
and detail the hypothesis.
For example
DSB create more hydrogen sulfide than other sandbed types.
This question may already be answered (see article)
DSB hold toxins that will later be released.
This would have to be further defined. What type (phosphates?heavy metals)
How long?
DSB need additional organisms to work properly. This is more difficult to define.
What does work properly mean? What organisms ? What density?
What controls would you use? Regular sand bed, no sand bed, no treatment
How many treatments to be significant?
Ex. DSB hold phosphates that will later be released.
Just for a minimum you might go with 12 tanks with DSB vs 12 tanks with Regular sandbeds. Two tanks DSB no treatment, Two tanks SB no treatment,
Two tanks no sand bed treatment.
Use same water,sand etc on all tanks
Cycle the tanks, use just ammonia because it can be somewhat standard.
After cycle add excess phosphate to the treatment tanks for 5 days.
Do 5 80 percent water changes to remove added phosphate in water.
Test phosphate level after two weeks in all tanks.
Change water and test in another two weeks ... Repeat
Collect all data and run stats.
You don't have to be a scientist to do this. The major issue is people don't want to put in the effort or money. Also this experiment is not perfectly designed so it does not prove anything, it just supports your hypothesis.
So someone could and would say for example "I use a finer sand than yours so your results don't apply.
Robert Toonen, Ph.D. article.
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2005/6/aafeature
If you want to design an experiment you have to limit your variables
and detail the hypothesis.
For example
DSB create more hydrogen sulfide than other sandbed types.
This question may already be answered (see article)
DSB hold toxins that will later be released.
This would have to be further defined. What type (phosphates?heavy metals)
How long?
DSB need additional organisms to work properly. This is more difficult to define.
What does work properly mean? What organisms ? What density?
What controls would you use? Regular sand bed, no sand bed, no treatment
How many treatments to be significant?
Ex. DSB hold phosphates that will later be released.
Just for a minimum you might go with 12 tanks with DSB vs 12 tanks with Regular sandbeds. Two tanks DSB no treatment, Two tanks SB no treatment,
Two tanks no sand bed treatment.
Use same water,sand etc on all tanks
Cycle the tanks, use just ammonia because it can be somewhat standard.
After cycle add excess phosphate to the treatment tanks for 5 days.
Do 5 80 percent water changes to remove added phosphate in water.
Test phosphate level after two weeks in all tanks.
Change water and test in another two weeks ... Repeat
Collect all data and run stats.
You don't have to be a scientist to do this. The major issue is people don't want to put in the effort or money. Also this experiment is not perfectly designed so it does not prove anything, it just supports your hypothesis.
So someone could and would say for example "I use a finer sand than yours so your results don't apply.
ME2003
Premium Member
The above post is not design to discourage research. Over time enough research would build up to support an accepted theory. Most hobbyist don't have the resources. There are a couple of ways to resolve the issue. 1. Get enough hobbyist to run many quality experiments or 2. fund a group/organization to do the research. The second approach is usually what happens for most research.
power boat jim
Well-known member
Unlesss its done by hobbiests, which means the science will only be as good as the group doing the study, it will never be done. There is simply isnt much to gain in funding it. I dont see all that much in the way of new information being uncovered. Its pretty well known what happens to sludge when it sits underwater in sand for a lond period of time.
There seems to be a corralation between sand beds that crash a tank and those that dont. The difference is the ones that keep a higher flow and are cleaned dont crash tanks, those that are not cleaned eventually cause a problem. Maybe my view is overly simplistic but that seems to be the trend I have noticed. Im not sure a ten year study would change results much, but if you like to put numbers to things the study might be entertaining.
There seems to be a corralation between sand beds that crash a tank and those that dont. The difference is the ones that keep a higher flow and are cleaned dont crash tanks, those that are not cleaned eventually cause a problem. Maybe my view is overly simplistic but that seems to be the trend I have noticed. Im not sure a ten year study would change results much, but if you like to put numbers to things the study might be entertaining.
pfoxgrover
New member
Well on Friday I just removed my 5 year old 7 inch sand bed from my 240g mixed reef and replaced it with a 2 inch sand bed of new, dry carib sea, sea floor special grade reef sand.
The tank never crashed but I was never able to get PO4 below 0.08 ppm. Also the aquascaping made vaccuming the sand almost impossible. The new aquascape should make that easier.
I considered removing the sand bed in sections but it was too invasive to the aquascape to do it in stages. Plus I have other means of nutrient export including live rock, cheato, bio pellets, skimmer, and reactors.
I will try to follow up o. Hoe the transition goes.
-Paul
The tank never crashed but I was never able to get PO4 below 0.08 ppm. Also the aquascaping made vaccuming the sand almost impossible. The new aquascape should make that easier.
I considered removing the sand bed in sections but it was too invasive to the aquascape to do it in stages. Plus I have other means of nutrient export including live rock, cheato, bio pellets, skimmer, and reactors.
I will try to follow up o. Hoe the transition goes.
-Paul
Reefin' Dude
New member
DSB's can they be harmful, yes. can BB, be harmful, yes. can any methodology be harmful, yes. i think it is time we stop trying to put all of the organism we want to keep into a box setup exactly the same. the organisms we keep come from very diverse environments. is there leeway, yes, but at what expense?
DSB's are great at creating a borderline oligotrophic system, they are not good at creating a true oligotrophic system. the DSB is the reason. they way it processes phosphates through it allows a good low level nutrient great for keeping those more eutrophic organisms we like to keep. it just happens that the nutrient levels are low enough also to support some true oligotrophic organisms temporarily. i say temporarily because at some point the nutrient levels start to rise the great sponge starts to fill, we counter this by using GFO, Carbon dosing, ... whatever the phosphate binder de jour is. we are throwing resources at the problem caused by the DSB being left to long without being cleaned of its increasing detrital matter. a DSB can be used fine as long as the time from for its effectiveness is watched and changed when it has lost its ability to maintain the desired trophic level. i know this sucks (been there done that) taking years of great growth out of a system in order to restart the DSB. this is why phosphate control products are so popular and why we spend so much money using them. we are using these products to cover up the affects of eutrophication in the system.
going with a true BB system, then there is the opposite problem. if one wants to keep a mixed reef or softies, it will be difficult to keep the system nice looking with all of the needed detritus in the system to support the organisms necessary to produce the nutrients needed for the more eutrophic corals yet still keeping the system oligotrophic enough to support the oligotrophic organisms.
we as aquarists spend an incredible amount of money on phosphate control. why? if the DSB is the ultimate way of keeping a system, then why do we need all of these phosphate binding devices? i think we have backed ourselves into a corner with this sand thing. we have put to much emphasis on trying to create biodiversity at the expense of maintaining a relatively long term system. if there is an increase in biomass, there must be an increase in food to support the biomass. if the biomass is something we want, say corals and such great, if the biomass is worms, nematodes, bacteria, then this is a sign that the system is not maintaining its trophic level and is becoming more eutrophic.
G~
DSB's are great at creating a borderline oligotrophic system, they are not good at creating a true oligotrophic system. the DSB is the reason. they way it processes phosphates through it allows a good low level nutrient great for keeping those more eutrophic organisms we like to keep. it just happens that the nutrient levels are low enough also to support some true oligotrophic organisms temporarily. i say temporarily because at some point the nutrient levels start to rise the great sponge starts to fill, we counter this by using GFO, Carbon dosing, ... whatever the phosphate binder de jour is. we are throwing resources at the problem caused by the DSB being left to long without being cleaned of its increasing detrital matter. a DSB can be used fine as long as the time from for its effectiveness is watched and changed when it has lost its ability to maintain the desired trophic level. i know this sucks (been there done that) taking years of great growth out of a system in order to restart the DSB. this is why phosphate control products are so popular and why we spend so much money using them. we are using these products to cover up the affects of eutrophication in the system.
going with a true BB system, then there is the opposite problem. if one wants to keep a mixed reef or softies, it will be difficult to keep the system nice looking with all of the needed detritus in the system to support the organisms necessary to produce the nutrients needed for the more eutrophic corals yet still keeping the system oligotrophic enough to support the oligotrophic organisms.
we as aquarists spend an incredible amount of money on phosphate control. why? if the DSB is the ultimate way of keeping a system, then why do we need all of these phosphate binding devices? i think we have backed ourselves into a corner with this sand thing. we have put to much emphasis on trying to create biodiversity at the expense of maintaining a relatively long term system. if there is an increase in biomass, there must be an increase in food to support the biomass. if the biomass is something we want, say corals and such great, if the biomass is worms, nematodes, bacteria, then this is a sign that the system is not maintaining its trophic level and is becoming more eutrophic.
G~
Its funny reading this and seeing how proud people are of their pride and what works for them. I think all three ways work and can work amazingly. Bare bottom would be the easiest but looks the most unnatural and takes away depth. Not only in a " looks" sense but for little critters and fish to live and sleep in. I could never personally do bare bottom because to me it lacks "vibe" if that makes sense. It seems like a cleaner aproach but i love the looks of sand and how a clean sand bed makes the corals and fish "pop" even more. I have a shallow sand bed and love it, i vacume it once every three water changes. Ive seen beautiful barebottom,shallow and deep sandbed tanks. If your passionate on your end and keep up on the labor youll do fine...lets drop the pride and appreciate variety:]
Hi all, just thought i would add my small input. I have ran 3 tanks now with display DSB's. My current tank has most of the rock work lifted up so the dsb gets more surface area. When I closed my last tank down and emptied the sand i never came across any black areas or dirty areas. As i disturbed all the sand to remove the rocks not of the fish left in the water seemed distressed or breathing heavy as you would associate with release of toxins.
My current setup has a 5 inch dsb with a 5 inch plympth around the bottom so people don't have to look at the pile of sand at the bottom. My tank has undetectable nitrates and I don't run phos remover, currently been running 2 years. Video of my tank as it stands at the moment but bare in mind i had to frag all my corals last year due to AEFW so what you see is whats grown from small frags http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1R_OF7IiM9k
Thanks,Dave
My current setup has a 5 inch dsb with a 5 inch plympth around the bottom so people don't have to look at the pile of sand at the bottom. My tank has undetectable nitrates and I don't run phos remover, currently been running 2 years. Video of my tank as it stands at the moment but bare in mind i had to frag all my corals last year due to AEFW so what you see is whats grown from small frags http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1R_OF7IiM9k
Thanks,Dave
The aquarist is what matters the most, not the method. I think that most TOTM quality reefers could make any system work.
The solution is simple - replace the sand.
I run 3" sandbeds in my tanks - give or take. Starting at about year four, I replace about 1/4 of the sand every year with new. I like what it provides when it is fresh and cycled, but I want to replace it BEFORE it is done bonding with phosphate. I also want to replace it slow. I have never had any NO3 or PO4 (on salifert) and never needed any GFO or carbon. In a tank years ago (started in 1992), I ran into phosphate issues at about year seven and got a tip from a local that using old tank substrate in a calcium reactor will unbind phosphates... so I put 2 and 2 together and have been replacing sand SLOWLY ever since - this seven year old tank had the phosphate issues go away in about two months after I started to replace the sand.
I still have 12-15 bags of southdown. Unfortunately, it cannot be used as replacement sand since I fear that it will cause a sandstorm that would take a week to settle down. The "bio alive" stuff in water rinses out very quicky, and well, and can be put down a funnel with very little cloud.
The solution is simple - replace the sand.
I run 3" sandbeds in my tanks - give or take. Starting at about year four, I replace about 1/4 of the sand every year with new. I like what it provides when it is fresh and cycled, but I want to replace it BEFORE it is done bonding with phosphate. I also want to replace it slow. I have never had any NO3 or PO4 (on salifert) and never needed any GFO or carbon. In a tank years ago (started in 1992), I ran into phosphate issues at about year seven and got a tip from a local that using old tank substrate in a calcium reactor will unbind phosphates... so I put 2 and 2 together and have been replacing sand SLOWLY ever since - this seven year old tank had the phosphate issues go away in about two months after I started to replace the sand.
I still have 12-15 bags of southdown. Unfortunately, it cannot be used as replacement sand since I fear that it will cause a sandstorm that would take a week to settle down. The "bio alive" stuff in water rinses out very quicky, and well, and can be put down a funnel with very little cloud.
wayne in norway
New member
I haven't read pages 2 or 3 of this thread so apologies for this. But generally the things are supposed to deal with nitrate, and mine did that for me for a couple of years rather well. However handling of phosphate is rather limited. Thus, if debris and harmful things are pooling, we would see a rise in phosphate.
There is reference in Delbeek and Sprung vol 3 to someone probing a dsb over a series of years, and measuring the levels of various things, including phosphate in the dsb porewater over a number of years, and seeing seasonal variations, but no year on year rise or trend in phosphate levels, or any of the other things. I do not recall if it was Delbeek or Rob Toonen who did this, but think the former. Does anyone have that reference.
FWIW that supports my opinion that a well designed dsb should not run into problems - however many are not well designed.
There is reference in Delbeek and Sprung vol 3 to someone probing a dsb over a series of years, and measuring the levels of various things, including phosphate in the dsb porewater over a number of years, and seeing seasonal variations, but no year on year rise or trend in phosphate levels, or any of the other things. I do not recall if it was Delbeek or Rob Toonen who did this, but think the former. Does anyone have that reference.
FWIW that supports my opinion that a well designed dsb should not run into problems - however many are not well designed.
Reefin' Dude
New member
Variable rates of phosphate uptake by shallow marine . carbonate sediments:
Mechanisms and ecological significance
more information about the uptake of phosphates by calcium carbonate in marine sediments. it is what calcium carbonate does, absorb phosphates. the important part is to know what to do with this knowledge. calcium carbonate substrates are phosphate sinks.
G~
Mechanisms and ecological significance
more information about the uptake of phosphates by calcium carbonate in marine sediments. it is what calcium carbonate does, absorb phosphates. the important part is to know what to do with this knowledge. calcium carbonate substrates are phosphate sinks.
G~
So concerning this all, I have recently thought about replacing the sand bed at regular intervals, with the cost of gfo and all other products it might work out to the same cost. However I was mentioning this to a friend and he ask could we not just regenerate it some how. We know vinegar reacts with araganite, would giving it a certain about of time in a vinegar bath help clean up the pores and remove the phosphates that have bound to it with out it turning to mush and then a good rinse?
wayne in norway
New member
Reefin Dude, that is a very interesting article. What I took away from it was that the sandbed was a sink of sorts, but that some phosphate was exported into seagrass.
That leads to the q', how long is it a sink for? If the answer is a long time, then ok, maybe we can live with that. As well know the number of tanks living longer than 5 let alone 10 years is pretty low. Also, if we were to grow Caulerpa on top would we be able to continue ad infinitum (seagrass is too hard to get for most)
Are we also so likely to see toxic accumulations of H2S, or at these exceptions in flawed designs?
That leads to the q', how long is it a sink for? If the answer is a long time, then ok, maybe we can live with that. As well know the number of tanks living longer than 5 let alone 10 years is pretty low. Also, if we were to grow Caulerpa on top would we be able to continue ad infinitum (seagrass is too hard to get for most)
Are we also so likely to see toxic accumulations of H2S, or at these exceptions in flawed designs?
Similar threads
