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

[norfolkgarden]

But it certainly gets turned over. Storm waves can dig out sand from the bottom and put it up on shore or move entire sand bars someplace else. Currents can move sand on a daily basis. Reef bottoms are generally not a static environment.

Lol. Let me give you our 2" pistol shrimp!
It's not as bad as an engineer goby, but close enough.

Growing frag disks on the sand is now much less of as option. They can end up completely covered in a days (nights) time.

BTW, Our 6" oolite DSB no longer "works" as a phosphate sponge after only 1.5 years.
A terribly overstocked and overfed tank used it up. We now keep it from crashing with GFO, Chemipure and 1/4 to 1/3 water changes every week to ten days.

Can't think of a fish, coral or invert I would want to edit out, so I do the maintenance instead.

One advantage, Massive water changes means no need to dose regularly. At least it's less maintenance that way.

 

[gregrocks79]

I have 2 pistols and a a diamond spot goby. My sand DSB gets turned over plenty!

I don't grow frags or anything and I'm not a fan of stuff on the sand so it works out for me. The flip side is, ill get particulates in the water here n there from all the movement. But it's natural and barely anything so it's ok! Haha

Once every two weeks water change, heavy skimming, clearfx pro, purigen and sealab no 28 blocks are all that I need to keep my tank thriving

 

[saf1]

But it certainly gets turned over. Storm waves can dig out sand from the bottom and put it up on shore or move entire sand bars someplace else. Currents can move sand on a daily basis. Reef bottoms are generally not a static environment.

Depends on the depth. What happens at 40 feet is different than 140. I've been at both and neither is bare.

Ironically, water flow in a box also move sand around. Note, this is one of those debates that neither side will win thus me stating "my" opinion. Until my tank reaches 35+ years it is just that, an opinion or observation. I'm not a firm believer of saying there is only one way to do something especially when mother nature states otherwise.

 

[power boat jim]

Depends on the depth. What happens at 40 feet is different than 140. I've been at both and neither is bare.

Ironically, water flow in a box also move sand around. Note, this is one of those debates that neither side will win thus me stating "my" opinion. Until my tank reaches 35+ years it is just that, an opinion or observation. I'm not a firm believer of saying there is only one way to do something especially when mother nature states otherwise.

The whole dsb sand bed debate has nothing to do with whats found in nature. Reefs dont use a dsb to run the nitrogen cycle from beginning to end. The way most people want their dsbs to function are far more closely related to conditions found in a swamp not a reef.

 

[gregrocks79]

The whole dsb sand bed debate has nothing to do with whats found in nature. Reefs dont use a dsb to run the nitrogen cycle from beginning to end. The way most people want their dsbs to function are far more closly related to conditions found in a swamp not a reef.

Swamp?? Mine isn't stagnant or muddy or filled with crocs n gators haha

 

[saf1]

The whole dsb sand bed debate has nothing to do with whats found in nature. Reefs dont use a dsb to run the nitrogen cycle from beginning to end. The way most people want their dsbs to function are far more closely related to conditions found in a swamp not a reef.

No, the whole debate is one of opinion and has been for many years. To say most is putting everyone who uses them in the same bucket and that isn't the case unless you or I are speaking for them. No different than those who say you must use a skimmer or keep pristine water conditions.

This isn't about using sand to replicate swamp conditions when sand is found in all of the reefs around the world.

Note: when I say opinion it is obviously including mine and not trying to single anyone out. I say this because regardless of what forum you see a question about DSB's raised, these sort of debates get started and there really isn't any conclusion and/or facts that say they are good or bad. Too much noise in the data, just my opinion.

 

[power boat jim]

No, the whole debate is one of opinion and has been for many years. To say most is putting everyone who uses them in the same bucket and that isn't the case unless you or I are speaking for them. No different than those who say you must use a skimmer or keep pristine water conditions.

This isn't about using sand to replicate swamp conditions when sand is found in all of the reefs around the world.

Note: when I say opinion it is obviously including mine and not trying to single anyone out. I say this because regardless of what forum you see a question about DSB's raised, these sort of debates get started and there really isn't any conclusion and/or facts that say they are good or bad. Too much noise in the data, just my opinion.

You missed the point entirely, There is this line of thinking that sand found over the worlds reefs somehow acts as a dsb like the ones we like to build. IT IS NOT THE SAME. Yes there is sand on the bottom of probably every reef environment but it does not act as a nitrate sinc. The conditions we create, thinking that we are emulating a reef floor or not are much closer a swamplike environment. Low flow, thick bed of decaying organic matter,thin layer of mud/sand sifting creatures, H2s can be a byproduct and sometimes the nitrate cycle is run full circle under these conditions. I doubt you will find many of the previously described conditions present together in a reef environment.

 

[saf1]

You missed the point entirely, There is this line of thinking that sand found over the worlds reefs somehow acts as a dsb like the ones we like to build.

No, I actually didn't. I ignored it because that is not "my" line of thinking. Not in a snotty way mind you, but it isn't what I believe at all. Just no mud, layers, or low flow. I treat it the same other than making sure I don't introduce anything that would destroy, disrupt, or eat the live things in there.

I just assume the infauna or whatever the correct term is to do their job which I believe it does. There are smarter people on the subject like Shimek, et al; I'm just a hobbyist.

I may have said it but the one question that always comes up is the longevity of tanks that run DSB's. That is one thing I tend to wonder about if truth be told. Mine have been 7 years but crashed due to a power outage while on vacation. All I can say is that I'm still using that sand, and rock today since it was the only thing really to survive a week away whereas everything else died.

 

[tdb320reef]

.

.

My first reef aquarium in '94 was a plenum design that was popular back then. It turned out to be an algae factory and would not have been manageable without a UV. Believe it or not I actually had a skimmer then. Since then my take has been shallow sand beds for aesthetics. Even with that I recently removed all of the sand I could get at in my big reef. My take is if you have nutrient issue add another or bigger skimmer and do more WC.

 

[ReeferBatman]

IMO, Yes they can be dangerous if not cared for properly (replaced, agitated well enough in a timely manner) .

The only person I've known that used one had issues after 2 years and went back to regular setup.

Not only does it take up a good chunk of your bottom glass (with "nasty looking-ness" to the un-aquatic-folk) but then you have the other problems that come along with it (un-oxygenated 'death zones' lol).

I understand the theory behind DSB and it's potential, but i'd rather use other methods of filtration. Personally, the risks outweigh the benefit.

And here's your $0.98 back.

 

[keving]

Ive always used DSBs and had one running for 8 years before selling my house and having to tear it down. I never had algae problems and I used coarse gravel 2 mm+ w some fines for wrasses, etc. I also had plenty of bioturbulation from sand conchs, fish, worms, etc. I had serious internal wave motion, like most SPS tanks and only had a problem when the power went out and my back up failed. O2 levels crash pretty quickly.

What I really wanted to add to this discussion is that Jaubert had a FLOW THROUGH drip on his system on the Mediterranean and large coral rubble fragments comprising his substrate. I have never seen a plenum set up with this configuration on a home aquarium.

I've always like DSBs for the life they bring to our home aquaria. Having said that, I worked in the Keys growing corals on the bottom and this always increased our risks of bacterial and predatory issues vs hanging them in the water column well above the substrate. Is there any data to support this, no. We do what works and this has many variables with each system.

 

[Reefin' Dude]

what data are you looking for?

Variable rates of phosphate uptake by shallow marine . carbonate sediments:
Mechanisms and ecological significance

the same mechanism here can occur in the skeletons of the corals. once in the skeleton all kinds of bad happens.

G~

 

[biologicalme]

Deep sand beds are not dangerous, its the improper implementation or set up that's dangerous. A properly set up deep sand bed is greater than 4" deep. if you go any less deep, you wont be able to grow the anaerobic bacteria that we're looking to grow in the deepest part of the sand bed. Also, you MUST use sugar grain sand, because this type of sand will diminish the amount of aeration the deep sand bed's deep layers will attain. A deep sand bed is part of an ecosystem type of system. Where you rely on trying to mimic nature's conditions in your limited space. This means you must grow the type of organisms that will benefit your sand bed and not disrupt the benefits you're looking to gain from implementing it. Another common mistake I've found while reading threads here is that they add the wrong animals to their system and then they blame the sand bed for releasing too much H2S and killing their system. You WANT to have copepods, bristle worms and bristle stars growing and thriving. You also want the sand bed to be sifted; unfortunately people add a sand sifting goby, or a sand sifting sea star, and these animals stir up the sand way TOO MUCH and consume most of the life that you're supposed to be growing (copepods, worms, starts etc...)

 

[Reefin' Dude]

you have been drinking the sand Kool-aid haven't you?

how does the phosphates that bind to the calcium carbonate get exported from the substrate? if it actually does get exported from the substrate, then what do all of the organisms that you want in the substrate feed on? how does this "ecosystem" start if the N and P are not in the substrate? if the substrate was N and P deficient, than there would not be any life in it.

you are correct that the organisms do help with keeping a substrate going for as long as it can, but at some point it needs to be cleaned of detritus. substrates work by slowly migrating N and P downward through them. these organisms help this to occur, but when the bottom is reached, the N and P just build up and create a toxic environment for these organisms to live. the depth of life in the substrate goes up, as in only the upper parts of the substrate can support higher organism life because the N and P laden detritus has filled up the substrate to a point that only the upper areas have enough O2 to support them.

there is not a mechanism either in nature or in our tanks for migrating N and P upwards through our substrates. if there were, than we would not be having any of these discussions. the substrates would naturally be oligotrophic. the unfortunate fact is that substrates are eutrophic.

G~

 

[power boat jim]

Deep sand beds are not dangerous, its the improper implementation or set up that's dangerous. A properly set up deep sand bed is greater than 4" deep. if you go any less deep, you wont be able to grow the anaerobic bacteria that we're looking to grow in the deepest part of the sand bed. Also, you MUST use sugar grain sand, because this type of sand will diminish the amount of aeration the deep sand bed's deep layers will attain. A deep sand bed is part of an ecosystem type of system. Where you rely on trying to mimic nature's conditions in your limited space. This means you must grow the type of organisms that will benefit your sand bed and not disrupt the benefits you're looking to gain from implementing it. Another common mistake I've found while reading threads here is that they add the wrong animals to their system and then they blame the sand bed for releasing too much H2S and killing their system. You WANT to have copepods, bristle worms and bristle stars growing and thriving. You also want the sand bed to be sifted; unfortunately people add a sand sifting goby, or a sand sifting sea star, and these animals stir up the sand way TOO MUCH and consume most of the life that you're supposed to be growing (copepods, worms, starts etc...)

Have you tried this or are you just reciting chapter and verse?

 

[saf1]

I think at the end of the day it is a personal preference. Too many argue they are good, bad or take the middle ground. Confined boxes we call aquariums run all sorts of substrate to include bare bottom. Who is to say what is the right answer is?

Go back 20 years in this hobby and see what people used. Even today people with very high tech tanks and bare bottoms experience failures. I don't think having sand is going to tilt it either way but that is just my opinion.

Until the ocean is bare bottom I'll continue to use sand (and yes, I am aware of the volume difference ). I guess the final answer is, of course, how long has the tank been up and even then what is the metric to use. 1 year, 2, 10, or 40?

 

[Psyops]

I think at the end of the day it is a personal preference. Too many argue they are good, bad or take the middle ground. Confined boxes we call aquariums run all sorts of substrate to include bare bottom. Who is to say what is the right answer is?

Go back 20 years in this hobby and see what people used. Even today people with very high tech tanks and bare bottoms experience failures. I don't think having sand is going to tilt it either way but that is just my opinion.

Until the ocean is bare bottom I'll continue to use sand (and yes, I am aware of the volume difference ). I guess the final answer is, of course, how long has the tank been up and even then what is the metric to use. 1 year, 2, 10, or 40?

Thank you! Please end the arguments now. Matter of preference.

 

[Reefin' Dude]

Go back 20 years in this hobby and see what people used. Even today people with very high tech tanks and bare bottoms experience failures. I don't think having sand is going to tilt it either way but that is just my opinion.

go back 20 years and people were using BB. i know, i was one of them. wish i had never tried substrate systems. you name it i have don them, except plenum.

have you ever done a BB system? i suggest everyone do a BB system at least once. no other reason than to see the amount of detritus that is produced in a system in a single day. those that have run substrate systems have no idea the amount of P laden material that accumulates in the substrate every day. after getting an idea on how much material needs to be removed, then put whatever one wants on the bottom. they now have an idea on what accumulates and needs to be removed from the substrate on a regular basis to keep the system at a constant trophic level.

Until the ocean is bare bottom I'll continue to use sand (and yes, I am aware of the volume difference ).

and this is the problem. it has little to do with volume and everything to do with accessibility to P. inorganic P is exported from the reefs on the outgoing tides to fall into the abyss where it sits because very little can utilize it without light. has nobody looked at a chart showing the phosphate cycle on earth?

most people really could not care less if somebody uses sand or not. all those people care about is that people understand that calcium carbonate is a phosphate sink and it needs to be treated as such. not all corals come from the same trophic level. a substrate is a great idea for those wanting a more eutrophic system to support these more eutrophic corals, but to tell people to use sand for all types of bio-topes is not wise and harmful to the hobby. the trophic levels are to diverse to try and have a single setup for ALL organisms that we want to keep. a substrate is nothing more than the litter in a cat box. it can only handle so much before it needs to be cleaned or replaced. the only argument here is from those that do not believe that they need to clean up after their own pets.

G~

 

[power boat jim]

go back 20 years and people were using BB. i know, i was one of them. wish i had never tried substrate systems. you name it i have don them, except plenum.

have you ever done a BB system? i suggest everyone do a BB system at least once. no other reason than to see the amount of detritus that is produced in a system in a single day. those that have run substrate systems have no idea the amount of P laden material that accumulates in the substrate every day. after getting an idea on how much material needs to be removed, then put whatever one wants on the bottom. they now have an idea on what accumulates and needs to be removed from the substrate on a regular basis to keep the system at a constant trophic level.



and this is the problem. it has little to do with volume and everything to do with accessibility to P. inorganic P is exported from the reefs on the outgoing tides to fall into the abyss where it sits because very little can utilize it without light. has nobody looked at a chart showing the phosphate cycle on earth?

most people really could not care less if somebody uses sand or not. all those people care about is that people understand that calcium carbonate is a phosphate sink and it needs to be treated as such. not all corals come from the same trophic level. a substrate is a great idea for those wanting a more eutrophic system to support these more eutrophic corals, but to tell people to use sand for all types of bio-topes is not wise and harmful to the hobby. the trophic levels are to diverse to try and have a single setup for ALL organisms that we want to keep. a substrate is nothing more than the litter in a cat box. it can only handle so much before it needs to be cleaned or replaced. the only argument here is from those that do not believe that they need to clean up after their own pets.

G~

You are banging you head against the wall. The science behind processing organic waste is either ignored or not understood by alot of people here. After working 20 some years in sewage treatment plant you understand that waste just does not magically dissappear no matter what you think "eats" it or how deep you think you can bury it . Sooner or later, in one form or another it needs to be removed from the water.

If it didnt, we could save million of dollars a year in sludge/solids seperation handling expenses.

 

[saf1]

20 years ago people also used under gravel filters and didn't use RO/RI water...I'm just using it as a reference point in that times change and people are still doing what they are comfortable or familiar with.

I'm not sure where you are getting that I am telling people to use a deep bed or not Reefin but I very well could be misunderstanding your comment. I just don't agree when people say they are dangerous to use. At the end of the day what people should care about in this hobby is to teach people to be consciousness of how they manage their "own" little environment. What works for you may not for me. Maybe I don't want a skimmer, maybe I want to use LED's, maybe I want to do only 1 water change a year. Maybe I want to add a iron chain in my tank, or put a bottle in it. Who is to say what is the right thing to do? We don't tell an artist what he or she can paint.

In regards to water treatment plants. I am very well versed in how they work in the greater Sacramento area. Operator to plant super but it hasn't changed my opinion.

Side note - I don't think I could do a bare bottom even to try or test. Kenya trees and green star polyps would make a mess of it unless I changed my maintenance routine. Then cleaning it up off the bottom would be, well, rather interesting to say the least. Does a sump count has bare bottom? Na, that is cheating I guess. So no, I've never had a bare bottom tank so I honestly don't have an opinion on how they work or how different it would be.