Deep Sand Bed -- Anatomy & Terminology

First nutrients; they do change to non bio available forms as bacteria exhaust them and in turn are consumed by other bacteria and so on until all of the useable energy is gone. In an overly simpified understanding :the C(organic carbon) and N will ultimately go (there are many forms along the way ) to acetate or further to methane via anaerobic digestion /fermentation ; the N once freed from the H in ammonia or the O in nitrite and nitrate will go to N2 .

The C will be replaced by athmospheric CO2 via photosynthesis. The N is reintroduced into the food chain from the athmosphere by diazotrophs including cyanobacteria which break the N2 bond with a unique enzyme nitrogenase.

Nutrients breakdown and are reintroduced constantly in a living reef; the quantity of nutrients in an aquarium is not a fixed amount but a moving target. On our tanks skimming , granulated activated carbon, etc. help offset the continuous input from foods via the export of organics. Given time the food would ultimately disappear as a source of nutrients leaving precipitated salts/ sand. . The trick is getting enough of the right kind of microbial activity ,sometimes aided by chemical an mechanical filtration to support the extraordinary density of life in our tanks compared to ocean densities and to insure a rapid enough export via the biofilter , chemical adsorbtion , mechanical means,etc.to maintain conditions in the water beneficial to the corals , fish, etc being kept in it.
The different bacteria performing different steps need variable amounts of OCNP and oxygen among other things.

It is quite possible in my opinion that Paul's success with the rugf has much to do with the amount of flow( not too much and not too little) to enable a vibrant bacteria culture via the delivery of CNP to them for nitrification and denitrification and possibly some organics break down too.
 
No, Eric Borneman has not had a tank crash due to his DSB. He has lost them due to power outages (Hurricane Ike most recently). He lost his favorite one around 2001 due to a broken air conditioner and his house over heated while he was in Australia if I recall correctly. It's Eric's and Ron Shimek's combined experience and input that have made me a DSB believer. I've never seen anybody on the other side of the argument come anywhere close to their level of expertise. Note that neither one of those two are light tank feeders.

If you are really interested in Eric Borneman's tanks he runs a forum on Marine Depot with sticky's about his tanks.

Morgan at Inland Aquatics has built a long term succesful bussiness model with a Deep Sand Bed being one of the fundamental cornerstones.

That's not to say that there aren't a lot of other ways to run a succesful tank, because many have. For those of us who really like to see diverse nature in our tanks, a fully alive deep sand bed is a very viable path to follow.
 
Tom, thanks for the response.

Interestingly, our community is a little different from the norm. I don't believe that anyone in the reefing community here (at least to my knowledge) has a bare bottom or SSB. Every tank I know of has an internal DSB; and certainly there are problems, but I would argue that most are due to a lack of maintanence. I'll have to do some calculations on my oldest tank, which I believe is somewhere around the 10 year mark.

No that's not true. There are many aquariums these days with shallow sand beds and/or bare bottoms. I personally keep 8 of them.

Actually my statement is true - when I referenced "our community", I was referring to our little town, not the reefing community at large ;). So you see, my statement it true :), in our town I don't know of a single bare bottom or SSB tank. Not saying they don't exist, just saying that if they do, I don't know about them.

My particular question at this point (and I apologize if it was previously answered somewhere deep inside the thread that I haven't gotten to yet) has to do with the production of the "toxic gases" within the DSB. Its always been my personal opinion that the need for 4" to 6" of sand was provided as more of a safeguard against the impulse buyer and eager beaver aquarist. While 2" to 3" may provide enough SB for removal of nitrates, the likelyhood of the aquarist or burrowing fish disturbing the sandbed enough to release the toxic gases is greatly increased, and IMO is one of the great contributers to the "case" of the crashing DSB. With 6" of sand, with the exception of a few of most active burrowers, it is nearly impossible to disturb the sand to that depth.


Anoxia( no nitrate and no oxygen) is more likely in the deeper sand where flow is reduced. It can occur at any depth if there is no nitrate or oxygen provided by water exchange or even when a little oxygen or nitrate gets there it may be used up rapidly by the denitrifiers setting the stage for the sulfate reducers which need an organic carbon source and then use the O in sulfate SO4 for energy producing hydrogen sulfide as a by prioduct.. It's a problem if some organic carbon is also present to support the sulfate reducing bacteria , say from decaying material on a buried rock or some other source. I've removed several deep beds not seeded with infauna to find only damp clean sand in the deep sections which indicates that not much of anything got down there .

An inch or two of sand does quite well ,ime.

I had seen this previously in the thread, and am curious if there is any documented research to back this up? If so, could you please post a link. In my mind, I have a really hard time picturing a shallow sandbed with oxygen free zones, unless clumping of sand is occuring - again keep in mind that I've never sat and studied an actually SSB tank. I just know from watching the DSB sandbed around here, that the top two inches of the sandbed is in almost constant motion, so I have a hard imagining that the same wouldn't be true in a shallow sandbed, and if it is wouldn't it prevent the occurance of Oxygen free zones?

This process does not remove anything from the system. Yes, all life takes in nutrients and obtains energy from it. Then they discharges waste that other oranisms use as nutrients to obtain energy. Then they discharge waste and the process continues. At no point in this process are the nutirents removed. They are simply passed from one organism to another.

Actually EC, as you yourself point out later in your own post, this statement is incorrect. The fact is the that nutrients (ie. nitrogen) are in fact removed from the system when they are converted into harmless nitrogen gas and pass out of the system. Once they become part of the air, they are no longer bond up within an organism and are not being passed from organism to organism.

In a sense, this portion of your arguement is similar to arguing that because they use Oxygen gas themselves, plants don't produce oxygen gas.

Anaerobic bacter remove far more nutrients (nitrogen) from the system by reducing it to nitrogen gas than they produce through their waste.
 
Last edited:
Longfellowship, see what you started. These DSB discussions get wordy and can last for eons with no answers.
 
No, Eric Borneman has not had a tank crash due to his DSB. He has lost them due to power outages (Hurricane Ike most recently). He lost his favorite one around 2001 due to a broken air conditioner and his house over heated while he was in Australia if I recall correctly. It's Eric's and Ron Shimek's combined experience and input that have made me a DSB believer. I've never seen anybody on the other side of the argument come anywhere close to their level of expertise. Note that neither one of those two are light tank feeders.

If you are really interested in Eric Borneman's tanks he runs a forum on Marine Depot with sticky's about his tanks.

Morgan at Inland Aquatics has built a long term succesful bussiness model with a Deep Sand Bed being one of the fundamental cornerstones.

That's not to say that there aren't a lot of other ways to run a succesful tank, because many have. For those of us who really like to see diverse nature in our tanks, a fully alive deep sand bed is a very viable path to follow.

I am familiar and feel the same. How long has your DSB been in operation?
 
That's not to say that there aren't a lot of other ways to run a succesful tank, because many have. For those of us who really like to see diverse nature in our tanks, a fully alive deep sand bed is a very viable path to follow.


I agree ,they are a very nice choice . Just not my preference any longer.
 
Actually my statement is true - when I referenced "our community", I was referring to our little town, not the reefing community at large . So you see, my statement it true , in our town I don't know of a single bare bottom or SSB tank. Not saying they don't exist, just saying that if they do, I don't know about them.


Well, Here are a few:

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1872264
 
An inch or two of sand does quite well ,ime.
I had seen this previously in the thread, and am curious if there is any documented research to back this up? If so,



The study that shows denitrification occurs in an inch or less of sand and that grain size and depth don't matter in sterile beds has been cited and linked several times in this thread.
 
Originally Posted by Paul B View Post
Who you calling Old?


Paul is a young man. I'm old .
 
Well I didn't start it, but hopefully I added some flavor
Yes I know, this will go on for a few more days then fizzle out like it always does.
Just don't ever mention ground probes because those threads go on longer than DSB threads and get violent.

I am lucky because no one has a RUGF or has experience with them so no one can argue about them.;)
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul B View Post
Longfellowship, see what you started. These DSB discussions get wordy and can last for eons with no answers.
Well I didn't start it, but hopefully I added some flavor


Yes it's good to have different flavors.

There are no answers as to which method or combination of methods is "best". Discussing how things work,the science behind them and anecdotal experiences gets information out there to help readers make choices and know why they are making them. So thanks for the discussion folks.
 
Actually my statement is true - when I referenced "our community", I was referring to our little town, not the reefing community at large . So you see, my statement it true , in our town I don't know of a single bare bottom or SSB tank. Not saying they don't exist, just saying that if they do, I don't know about them.


Well, Here are a few:

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1872264

Very nice looking tanks, but once again what I see from your pictures is mounds of sand. My guess is that you didn't design the tank that way, but rather those mounds have been created by the movement of sand by flow. Again then it would appear to me that the movement of the sand, would prevent the occurance of Oxygen free zones, and thus the process of anerobic respiration. On the other hand, I could see where you might get anerobic respiration within the mounds, but that in effect is simply a small area of DSB, rather than a shallow sandbed isn't it?

An inch or two of sand does quite well ,ime.
I had seen this previously in the thread, and am curious if there is any documented research to back this up? If so,


The study that shows denitrification occurs in an inch or less of sand and that grain size and depth don't matter in sterile beds has been cited and linked several times in this thread.

Very good, I'm on page 3, so I will continue to read as I get a chance until I come across the article.

Thanks again
 
Scopas, The mounds are from a pistol shrimp. The tank with the mounds in front is an erstwhile dsb tank which lasted 7 +years. I have been siphoning out the clogged sand over the last year or so as it moves to the front.
It just doesn't take great depth to provide hypoxic conditions. In addition to the study there are numerous writings these days that show hypoxia can easily occur within even the thin facultative heterotrophic bacterial mats. Deep sand beds are nice for a variety of reasons but are not necessary for anaerobic activity.

BTW , I think the thread is a good read but if you are in a hurry for the study which includes several other references ,I was able to find the link:

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2005/6/aafeature#h5
 
Blindly following refers to following someone who doesn't back up what they say with documented research.


I don't know what that means. :confused: If you're trying to say that I don't back up what I'm saying with documented research, I'm really confused. I posted two links in the post you quoted.

Pushing nutrients around is different than NO3 being transformed into N2 and O2 which most would not consider nutrients.

You're a scientest that believe nitrogen and oxygen are not nutrients????? Serously????? Here's some more reading.
http://www.tutorvista.com/topic/oxygen-nutrient-cycle
And a quote from the link.
"The nutrients required by plants for their healthy growth are 16 in number. They are carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, calcium, magnesium, sulphur, iron, manganese, copper, zinc, boron, molybdenum and chlorine. "

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...e&sa=X&ei=wDEATdufDMWt8AbT7sHoBw&ved=0CBsQkAE
And one of the definitions of nutrient cycle from the link.
"•Chemical transformation of nitrogen, phosphorus and silica compounds in continuous cycles of organic and inorganic phases in an ecosystem."



Fixed nutrients being removed with export methods is not pushing it around.

What export methods are you using to remove these fixed nutrients? The Shemik sand bed is not an export method. It is a nutrient sink method.



Cyano needs light and should be kept under control by the fauna that lives in the light reaching regions.

How is that possible? Okay, lets look at this. Cyanobacteria take nutrients out of the water, and they use them to reproduce. A worm eats some cyanobacteria. It later poo's. Then microbes feed on the poo and liquifies it. Now the nutrients from the poo, that were once in the cyanobacteria, are once again available in the water to fuel more cyanobacterial growth. This is how nutrient cycles work. This process does not remove cyanobacteria.

Shimek is clear that cyano blooms should not be a constant feature.

So Shemik took photos of his own system, when it was failing, and posted them in his article???????
 
Actually EC, as you yourself point out later in your own post, this statement is incorrect. The fact is the that nutrients (ie. nitrogen) are in fact removed from the system when they are converted into harmless nitrogen gas and pass out of the system. Once they become part of the air, they are no longer bond up within an organism and are not being passed from organism to organism.

My statement is not incorrect. Anerobic bacteria do not remove nitrate, or any other nutrient, from the system. They simply split nitrate into nitrogen and oxygen. They have no control over what happens to the nitrogen after that. This process takes place deep within Shemiks sand bed. Between this area and the surface lives nitrogen fixing bacteria like cyanobacteria. These bacteria take the nitrogen gass out of the water and place it back into the nitrogen cycle, where it is passed from organism to organism. Any N2 that makes it through the sand, and doesn't reenter the sand, or contact cyanobacteria in other places of the system before reaching the surface, can be gassed off. In a cleaner system, you have less nitrogen to begin with, much much much fewer cyanobacteria, and anarobic bacteria still manage to survive in the sand and rocks where they can convert nitrate to nitrogen gass.


Anaerobic bacter remove far more nutrients (nitrogen) from the system by reducing it to nitrogen gas than they produce through their waste.

Can you please post a like to where you got this information?
 
Last edited:
First nutrients; they do change to non bio available forms as bacteria exhaust them and in turn are consumed by other bacteria and so on until all of the useable energy is gone. .

Can you please post a link to this information?

Nutrients do not run out of energy. Life gets its energy through chemical reactions. Not by sucking all the energy out of nutrients until its all gone. Life has been on this planet for 3.5 to 4 billion years. Depending on who you talk to. If the statement you made above were true, in that amount of time, life would have used up all the "usable energy" and it would be gone. In other words, we would not be here. We are utilizing the same nutrients for energy, through chemical reactions, that the dinosaurs and the creatures before them used. The life that inhabits this planet after us will use these same nutrients to produce chemical reactions that supply their energy as well. We live on a small rock in the middle of space. There is no space ship bringing us loads of nutrients to replace ours when the "energy is all gone". It is the chemical reaction between these nutrients that gives us energy.
 
Scopas, The mounds are from a pistol shrimp. The tank with the mounds in front is an erstwhile dsb tank which lasted 7 +years. I have been siphoning out the clogged sand over the last year or so as it moves to the front.
It just doesn't take great depth to provide hypoxic conditions. In addition to the study there are numerous writings these days that show hypoxia can easily occur within even the thin facultative heterotrophic bacterial mats. Deep sand beds are nice for a variety of reasons but are not necessary for anaerobic activity.

BTW , I think the thread is a good read but if you are in a hurry for the study which includes several other references ,I was able to find the link:

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2005/6/aafeature#h5

Excellent! Thank you Tom for both the link and information - I'll take a look at this tomorrow when I get a chance.

You're a scientest that believe nitrogen and oxygen are not nutrients????? Serously????? Here's some more reading.
http://www.tutorvista.com/topic/oxygen-nutrient-cycle
And a quote from the link.
"The nutrients required by plants for their healthy growth are 16 in number. They are carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, calcium, magnesium, sulphur, iron, manganese, copper, zinc, boron, molybdenum and chlorine. "

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...e&sa=X&ei=wDEATdufDMWt8AbT7sHoBw&ved=0CBsQkAE
And one of the definitions of nutrient cycle from the link.
"•Chemical transformation of nitrogen, phosphorus and silica compounds in continuous cycles of organic and inorganic phases in an ecosystem."

As a biologist, I agree with the statement that oxygen is a nutrient as well; standard science texts include the carbon-oxygen cycle as a nutrient cycle. I think the problem there (and perhaps the source of disagreement with several of your statements EC) lies in how we define a nutrient. Oxygen is an element that is necessary for the process of cellular respiration and therefore for the release of energy for growth to occur. Unlike what we normally consider nutrients (nitrogen/phosphate), its primary role in this cycle is in the release of or binding of energy in the carbohydrate or oxygen - carbon cycle, not in the formation of nitrogen molecules.

My statement is not incorrect. Anerobic bacteria do not remove nitrate, or any other nutrient, from the system. They simply split nitrate into nitrogen and oxygen. They have no control over what happens to the nitrogen after that. This process takes place deep within Shemiks sand bed. Between this area and the surface lives nitrogen fixing bacteria like cyanobacteria. These bacteria take the nitrogen gass out of the water and place it back into the nitrogen cycle, where it is passed from organism to organism. Any N2 that makes it through the sand, and doesn't reenter the sand, or contact cyanobacteria in other places of the system before reaching the surface, can be gassed off. In a cleaner system, you have less nitrogen to begin with, much much much fewer cyanobacteria, and anarobic bacteria still manage to survive in the sand and rocks where they can convert nitrate to nitrogen gass.

This process does not remove anything from the system. Yes, all life takes in nutrients and obtains energy from it. Then they discharges waste that other oranisms use as nutrients to obtain energy. Then they discharge waste and the process continues. At no point in this process are the nutirents removed. They are simply passed from one organism to another.

Nutrients are removed from the system when they become nitrogen gas - at this point and time they are free nitrogen and are not bound into an organic molecule and are not being passed from one organism to another - their presence in the sandbed is of absolutely no significance to the system unless they are captured and rebound. If they get caught by cyanobacteria and recoverted into a bound molecule they reenter the system. By the definition you are trying to use, all nitrogen gas both within the tank and the atmosphere would have to be considered to be part of the system. IMO, its not. Part of the nutrient cycle yes, part of that particular system no. In other words, you could pump staight N2 into your system, and unless there is sufficient cyanobacter or other nitrogen fixing organisms present to bind it up and convert it into nitrogen compounds, it is not going to affect your system. I agree with the statement that aneorobic bacteria do not remove it, they simply convert it into N2 gas.

Nutrients do not run out of energy. Life gets its energy through chemical reactions. Not by sucking all the energy out of nutrients until its all gone. Life has been on this planet for 3.5 to 4 billion years. Depending on who you talk to. If the statement you made above were true, in that amount of time, life would have used up all the "usable energy" and it would be gone. In other words, we would not be here. We are utilizing the same nutrients for energy, through chemical reactions, that the dinosaurs and the creatures before them used. The life that inhabits this planet after us will use these same nutrients to produce chemical reactions that supply their energy as well. We live on a small rock in the middle of space. There is no space ship bringing us loads of nutrients to replace ours when the "energy is all gone". It is the chemical reaction between these nutrients that gives us energy.

I disagree with the grounds of this entire statement. First of all, nitrogen compounds are not used by organisms as a source of energy, except as a last resort. Energy in organisms is primarily stored in carbohydrates, not in ammino acids or proteins. Ammino acids and proteins are broken down by the body as an energy source only as a last resort - if you get to this point in the cycle you have way more problems than nitrogen issues. Your statement that we are using the same nutrients for energy, through chemical reactions that the dinosaurs and the creatures before them used is technically correct, however those nutrients are not nitrogen; they are carbon, oxygen and hydrogen - the component elements of carbohydrates. Secondly as Tom said, these carbohydrates are broken down and the energy is released from them until they no longer contain any energy (that energy is "used up" and converted to heat energy which is lost to the system into the atmosphere (as Tom correctly stated - never to be used again)). New energy from the sun (in the form of light or the chemical energy released from sulfer reactions (if you want to include chemosynthesizers into the equation as well)) is used to rebind these elements together into new carbohydrates which are then used for energy. Nitrogen compounds such as NO2 NO3 and NH4 are not part of this oxygen-carbon cycle, which is what provides us with energy. The transfer of energy within Earths system is one directional, it is not a cycle.

FYI, I really hate to push this the other direction LOL, but did run across this article while I was looking for something else - perhaps its been referenced before? Again, admittedly I have not made it through the entire thread yet. It makes an interesting read and perhaps will add something to the discussion as well.

http://www.bioconlabs.com/autoheterobac.html
 
Last edited:
Very nice summary Scopas.

For general discussion from my understanding.
(I'm sure you and Longfellowship will challenge anything that needs correcting; nice to have a chemist and biologist on board ,btw):
I would add that N2 can't be used biologically due to the strong bond between two nitorgen atoms. Only when the bond between the two nitrogen atoms is broken, naturally by the enzyme nitrogenase or by commercial chemical processes,can the N atoms be joined by other atoms,most notably for our purposes by H+ forming ammonia(NH3/4) . The ammonia can in turn be oxidized to NO2(nitrite) and NO3(nitrate) by bacteria in oxic waters. Some of the N will be used by living organisms along with O ,C and H to create amino acids, peptides and proteins. Much of the O will be respired by facultative heterotrophic bacteria engaged in anaerobic digestion leaving the N to bond to N2 gas and renter the athmosphere.
Who knows maybe it works it's way back to the stars where it is thought to have been made.

Since N atoms are drawn to each other it will easily go back to strongly bonded N2 when stripped of the H and O and join the earth's air which is 78% N2 So while nitrogen is a nutrient;it is not so as N2. The sun's energy power cyanobacteria and other diazotrophs which uniquely produce nitrogenase and make athmospheric N2 a food( nutrient) by breaking the bond and enabling it to bond with otehr atoms like H ;just as the sun's energy converts CO2 to organic carbon containing bonded C and H ( carbohydrates)via photosynthetic organisms. If it were otherwise we'd all gain a lot of weight from breathing N2 and CO2.

There are a plethora of cyanobacteria species and other diazotrophs.
I'm not sure if all of them form heterocysts( the anoxic sacs wherein nitrogenase can catalyze the breaking of the bond and the "fixing" of nitrogen ) . Even if the cyano in our tanks can, they can also take up bioavailable forms of nutrients ;it would seem with less effort. Generally , they need only water , CO2 and the sun's energy to survive, but cyano in aquariums generally wax in the presence of N and orthophosphate and wane when N and P levels are lower by most accounts.
 
Back
Top