aren't the way to offset the negative effects of a DSB also employed with a tank free of substrate(filtration)? Effectively if the same filtration choices are needed, then how is the bare bottom the truly superior choice. Do you have links or know of bare bottom tanks that have been surviving and thriving for 10-20 years? Theory is not practice.
Are Deep Sand Beds, DSBs, dangerous to use in a marine aquarium?
- Thread starter JPMagyar
- Start date
aren't the way to offset the negative effects of a DSB also employed with a tank free of substrate(filtration)? Effectively if the same filtration choices are needed, then how is the bare bottom the truly superior choice. Do you have links or know of bare bottom tanks that have been surviving and thriving for 10-20 years? Theory is not practice.
Paul B
Premium Member
I would not want you to change the final chapter of your dissertation but if you need an example of a scientific study that has lasted a little longer than most scientific studies, my RUGF has been running for about 42 years, non stop. I would agree that my nitrate is considered a little high at 40 but this is of no concern to me as I feel low nitrates as they relate to coral and fish health is a farce to an extent. The reason I run a RUGF (other than the fact that no other systems existed at the time of the onset of this tank except regular UG filters) is the fact that it seems to be bulletproof. Power or no power doesn't seem to affect it nor does massive additions of dead or decaying organisms. It can be stirred, or not stirred as it doesn't matter. Another fact about this system is that living creatures live completely through it right up to the bottom glass and they live and re produce happily unlike a DSB where creatures are "supposed" to live but if the thing is working correctly there will not be enough oxygen in the lower layers for anything to live contrary to popular opinion and scientific studies. (which I sometimes have little faith in because they only last for a few months or a couple of years) But as I usually say, I am to stupid to know exactly why or how it works. I am just smart enough to know that it actually does work and I came to that decision last Tuesday after using one for 4 decades and reading all the problems with other systems
:thumbsup:
References:
Me again
When you are measuring how much Nitrate is removed, do you measure regular Nitrate or total Nitrogen in the water? Do you also do total Nitrogen digestions on samples from the substrate?
I guess I'm wondering if you take measurements to confirm that the nitrate wasn't just converted to organic form, or trapped within the substrate?
I agree that if you have algae on the sand it is an issue. Otherwise, I don't see it as any concern. Who cares about the "overall content"? If it isn't impacting creatures in the water column, it seems a minor point to me.
Amphiprionocellaris
New member
Right now it's just a fun little side project without any rigorous study, and I'm just monitoring nitrate in the effluent. If and when it comes time to use more detail I'll simply look at N2 creation, which is a direct measure of denitrification. But that's a good bit in the future unless I can nab more funding.
They won't have the data because it just isn't there. The data is mostly anecdotal. And even if it is based on research it would within a controlled environment. Let me ask you this, how many home aquariums are using the same control methods? Yeah, right. Zero.
It is a hobby. No set rules, regulations, or requirements more or less outside the use of saltwater if you are keeping corals/reefs/bio-type. We can use any lighting, any substrate, no substrate, natural sea water, synthetic, home made, keep a variety of fish, corals, and that isn't even including infrastructure like lights, cooling, water circulation, or a skimmer
The world's ocean is what, 70%. I'm pretty sure research is only scratching the surface on this. Don't get me wrong there are some pretty interesting discussions going on in this thread but you lose sight of it when things are said like a pico or nano will crash in a year because it is running a DSB. Or even "may" or has a higher chance of failure because of it when there are a equal number of threads talking about crashing with bare or other substrate types. Not everyone reads, posts, or knows about forums and there sure in the heck isn't a federal, state, or city requirement to say when a tank crashes or why...
Shh, your going put a monkey wrench in the arguments of the anti DSB crowd. They like to forget they have all the same nutrient issues, and that bare bottom tanks crash just as often as any other method
Paul,
Next time your mucking about with your dinghy and that weed whacker outboard, head to the back end of a salt mash. Find some nice muck and start digging and sieving for worms etc. (It's fun, even if smelly) You'd be amazed at what is actually adapted to burrow into that anoxic sediment and live. Those critters actually bring a level of O2 down into that anoxic muck, as well as transporting material back up into the water column...it's the bioturbation us science types talk about
I agree that if you have algae on the sand it is an issue. Otherwise, I don't see it as any concern. Who cares about the "overall content"? If it isn't impacting creatures in the water column, it seems a minor point to me.
x2000
If the overall content (including what's in the biomass and sediment) was such a problem, reefs wouldn't exist as we know them.
Lavoisier
Premium Member
...it's the bioturbation us science types talk about
You science guys. I just came across "bioturbation" this weekend rereading Adey's classic Dynamic Aquaria. Here's one almost as good: "phytoremediation," He then goes on to discuss stability [in the aquarium] by locking up nutrients in the biomass rather than the rapid removal of "nonliving organics and organism excretions." Clearly, DSB have to be managed rather than ignored but they provide a level of stability that is hard to achieve without their use.
Now I remember where I first read about this. It was Addey's Dynamic Aquaria. He had a whole section on marshes, seagrass beds and the like.Next time your mucking about with your dinghy and that weed whacker outboard, head to the back end of a salt mash. Find some nice muck and start digging and sieving for worms etc. (It's fun, even if smelly) You'd be amazed at what is actually adapted to burrow into that anoxic sediment and live. Those critters actually bring a level of O2 down into that anoxic muck, as well as transporting material back up into the water column...it's the bioturbation us science types talk about
Why is this so often missed/ignored here?
Edit: Lavoisier. I read your post after posting this one. Funny you should mention the same book. I read it years ago. Where did you find it? My understanding is that it is out of print.
Shh, your going put a monkey wrench in the arguments of the anti DSB crowd. They like to forget they have all the same nutrient issues, and that bare bottom tanks crash just as often as any other method
Paul,
Next time your mucking about with your dinghy and that weed whacker outboard, head to the back end of a salt mash. Find some nice muck and start digging and sieving for worms etc. (It's fun, even if smelly) You'd be amazed at what is actually adapted to burrow into that anoxic sediment and live. Those critters actually bring a level of O2 down into that anoxic muck, as well as transporting material back up into the water column...it's the bioturbation us science types talk about
x2000
If the overall content (including what's in the biomass and sediment) was such a problem, reefs wouldn't exist as we know them.
So what kind of regimen that could serve as a decent guidelines for DSB keeping for a newbie like myself that really wants sand and all its critters? Blowing detritus off rocks and sand, siphoning sand, dosing this or that, etc? I have this gravel cleaner and was thinking if I used it on sand it would probably suck up all the critters too.
I've heard having a clean up crew doesn't do anything cause it just turns the detritus into more poo. There are a lot of conflicting voices in this thread so for simplicity sake, what is your summary of how to maintain a DSB?
A good DSB needs to be at least 4 inches deep, more is OK, less I find doesn't really function as a DSB. A good load of various worms, pods, through in some sand mopping cukes, nassarius snails, cerith snails, small hermits and such. Avoid critters that prey heavily on sand bed fauna....such as sand sifting stars, bumble bee snails, and sleeper gobies (I love this family, but they will decimate a DSB of critters in a heartbeart). Good reef type currents are important as well. The more cryptic critters, the worms, pods, and such, can be purchased from some sources, obtained by getting some sand from a fellow aquarist with a thriving sand bed, or purchasing true live sand...not the bagged stuff on the LFS shelf...also a fair amount of useful critters will show up in LR that migrate to the sand.
Some people (even DSB supporters) debate this next one, but I do like to occasionally disturb the sand bed in small sections. Occasionally (every few months or so) I do like to vacuum small sections of the sand bed, no more than 25% if that much at one time. Yes, you will loose a certain amount of fauna in that small patch, however, I find that patch quickly repopulates from the surrounding undisturbed sand bed. Sometimes I've even simply stuck a turkey baster into the sand and "fluffed" it up a bit to just shake it up a bit. More or less, the idea is that such sediments get occasional major disturbances from storms, so I simulate that storm in my tanks
So far I've never seen more detritus shake out of the sand bed than I'd find by stirring up the sand bed at the bottom of a coral head on the reef It almost seems as though a thriving sand bed could be reefing permaculture technique...
Fine. A good find oolite is good. Can be a few larger particles mixed in. I don't bother rinsing, as you'll never get it to rinse clear
While it will make the tank cloudy, that does clear up after a couple of weeks, so it's not a worry.
Lavoisier
Premium Member
I found a used 2nd edition last year on Amazon.
Also, I found this paper written by Toonen a few years ago (http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2005/6/aafeature) to be interesting in that it runs various clinical experiments comparing tanks with sand beds (deep and shallow/course and fine sand) and with plenums(deep and shallow/course and fine sand). It was inconclusive in many ways but one startling, unexpected result was that in the DSB with fine sand significantly fewer organisms died than in any of the other types of tanks.
Paul B
Premium Member
Actually Bill I am probably the God of mucking around at the end of salt marshes and was there twice this week and may go back today. I spend entirely to much time lifting rocks to collect amphipods. Under every rock that is not to stuck to the mud there are loads of amphipods, crabs, eels and worms, "but" under every rock that is to stuck in the mud is filled with hydrogen sulfide and absolutely no life that I could see with my eyes. Maybe if I borrowed the Hubble telescope I may be able to see some life there but after doing this for almost 60 years, I have yet to find anything under a rock that is devoid of oxygen as it is black and stinks. :frog:
I can take a video of me lifting rocks that are just engulfed in hydrogen sulfide but that would be the same as closing your eyes and sniffing rotten eggs because that is exactly the same thing. No oxygen = no life except some bacteria. I don't really care what some scientific types think. They need to get dirty and actually go to a muddy tide pool and sniff a little. :lol:
Here is a couple of videos
of me at the salt marsh (where I practically live) collecting amphipods from a piece of wood that had circulation under it.
Turn up the sound as it was a SCUBA camera and the sound was muffled
Amphiprionocellaris
New member
Some of us do that all the time, and frankly it's not a matter of "what we think", it's what we see. The only thing that really excludes larger life is the toxic sulfide buildup; anoxic sediments aren't really an obstacle to burrowing organisms.
It all depends on where you go, really. The muddy sediments with low permeability especially are prone to develop sulfide pockets that exclude life (especially when large obstructions like rocks impede flow and diffusion), but outside those pockets there are thousands of 'pods and especially worms that have burrowed several inches into the anoxic zone wherever you go. Whenever I go down to the marsh system off Sapelo I can dig anywhere and pretty much guarantee I'll find tons of burrowing organisms. And then when you go out to sand flats, the amount of life burrowed into the anoxic zone is just insane, and their action is one of the most important buffers keeping the marshes and sand flats functioning. The only place where we consistently don't observe organisms in anoxic sediment is after a eutrophic/hypoxic event when the low bottom water O2 excludes or kills most of the community.
Paul B
Premium Member
OK, if you say so. Maybe the organisms in Georgia are smarter (or dumber) than the organisms we have here in New York because there is nothing under the oxygenated layer except hydrogen sulfide, but above that is teeming with life. Just like my RUGF.
This mud that I am standing on in this Steven Spielberg video covers the place and there are thousands of fiddler crabs that can burry down to the anoxic layer. If you dig a few inches down, it is black and dead. But like I said, I may be to stupid to understand why oxygen using organisms would want to dig into non oxygen areas when there is so much free oxygen above all that black oozing muck which exudes sulfides.
Here in New York, there is nothing living a few inches down on a mud flat. Maybe I spend my time on the wrong mud flats. New York mud may be finer than Georgia Mud
This mud that I am standing on in this Steven Spielberg video covers the place and there are thousands of fiddler crabs that can burry down to the anoxic layer. If you dig a few inches down, it is black and dead. But like I said, I may be to stupid to understand why oxygen using organisms would want to dig into non oxygen areas when there is so much free oxygen above all that black oozing muck which exudes sulfides.
Here in New York, there is nothing living a few inches down on a mud flat. Maybe I spend my time on the wrong mud flats. New York mud may be finer than Georgia Mud
This [top]
Paul, you know I grew up and spent a lifetime (up till my move to FL a couple years ago) mucking about the beaches and salt marshes of Eastern LI. My comments on life in the sand beds and muck of salt marshes is not from academic book learning, but personal mucking about
There really is plenty of life if you look close, even in that photo you just posted.So these critters will take care of the phosphates and nitrates? I thought people said they just turn it into "inorganic phosphates" that are much worse for the system or something. What do I do about the "ticking time bomb" of nutrients?
Also, could I plant a patch of sea grass in my sand? Wouldn't that use the phosphates and maybe some fish can graze on it? And what do you think about having a single gobie? Would love to see it nibble on worms and stuff.
Similar threads
