Aquarist007
New member
IMO you have not had your deep sand bed long enough yet to tell if it is functioning well. From other more experienced reefers on here, somewhere between 5 and 8 years they fail
Deep Sand Bed -- Anatomy & Terminology
- Thread starter Whys
- Start date
IMO you have not had your deep sand bed long enough yet to tell if it is functioning well. From other more experienced reefers on here, somewhere between 5 and 8 years they fail
Glad it works for you.
Most of the techniques you noted are pretty standard,some like a sea cucumber which can decimate bacteria and a conch which may bulldoze corals are debateable .
If the bed were fully functional it should keep NO3 very low . Mine worked fine for over 7 years. At some point though the sand needs replenishment and a clogged bed can do harm as localized ph changes may cause a breakdown of bound elements like metals.
You don't need sand to grow pods and other benthic fuauna, btw. Rock ,macroalgae and shallow sand beds or pockets do fine. Most folks who culture pods for food do so in a separate culturing vessel.
Some corals don't care much about nitrate up to 30ppm or more for some such leathers,discoma, rhodactis and xenia. Sps and some lps are more sensitive to it ,however. Surface reef waters run under 0.2ppm NO3 and 0.005 PO4. High PO4 which also comes from heavy feeding and detritus buildup is very harmful to stony corals. Both high NO3 and PO4 grow nuisance algae and cyanobacteria So heavy feeding for the sake of the clean up crew and pods and/ or an unattended long term sand bed may be quite harmful to some organisms even though beneficial to pods and such at least in the short term..
Lateral flow across the bottom of the tank related to powerheads at the top will create some advective flow. As the flow strikes obstructions such as the live rock and to a much lesser extent the sand grains, the water pressure at the obstruction changes causing an upwelling in the footprint of the obstruction with a consequent downward flow. But advection and diffusion alone are inadequate to insure enough flow deep into the bed to deliver nutrients and oxygen or NO3 for the faculative heterotrophic bacteria that perform nitrification and denitrification.
In addition to tinkering with teh cleanup crew population from time to time,maintaining a bed requires periodic export of some used sand and replacement with some live sand to ensure the tunneling organisms remain plentiful which is significant work,in my opinion.,compared to some other techniques to maintain optimal nutrient levels. .
Most of the techniques you noted are pretty standard,some like a sea cucumber which can decimate bacteria and a conch which may bulldoze corals are debateable .
If the bed were fully functional it should keep NO3 very low . Mine worked fine for over 7 years. At some point though the sand needs replenishment and a clogged bed can do harm as localized ph changes may cause a breakdown of bound elements like metals.
You don't need sand to grow pods and other benthic fuauna, btw. Rock ,macroalgae and shallow sand beds or pockets do fine. Most folks who culture pods for food do so in a separate culturing vessel.
Some corals don't care much about nitrate up to 30ppm or more for some such leathers,discoma, rhodactis and xenia. Sps and some lps are more sensitive to it ,however. Surface reef waters run under 0.2ppm NO3 and 0.005 PO4. High PO4 which also comes from heavy feeding and detritus buildup is very harmful to stony corals. Both high NO3 and PO4 grow nuisance algae and cyanobacteria So heavy feeding for the sake of the clean up crew and pods and/ or an unattended long term sand bed may be quite harmful to some organisms even though beneficial to pods and such at least in the short term..
Lateral flow across the bottom of the tank related to powerheads at the top will create some advective flow. As the flow strikes obstructions such as the live rock and to a much lesser extent the sand grains, the water pressure at the obstruction changes causing an upwelling in the footprint of the obstruction with a consequent downward flow. But advection and diffusion alone are inadequate to insure enough flow deep into the bed to deliver nutrients and oxygen or NO3 for the faculative heterotrophic bacteria that perform nitrification and denitrification.
In addition to tinkering with teh cleanup crew population from time to time,maintaining a bed requires periodic export of some used sand and replacement with some live sand to ensure the tunneling organisms remain plentiful which is significant work,in my opinion.,compared to some other techniques to maintain optimal nutrient levels. .
Aquarist007
New member
I had to look this one up so I thought I should post it for any one else not grasping it
A facultative anaerobic organism is an organism, usually a bacterium, that makes ATP by aerobic respiration if oxygen is present but is also capable of switching to fermentation
A facultative anaerobic organism is an organism, usually a bacterium, that makes ATP by aerobic respiration if oxygen is present but is also capable of switching to fermentation
Thanks for getting the spelling on facultative right. I messed it up in my post.
In essence these bacteria are aerobic and when there is no oxygen present they respire anaerobicly( ie using the O from NO3),so they need at least NO3 to thrive along with organic carbon ( they are non photosynthetic / heterotrophic ;so they don't make their own organic carbon) and phosphate for food.
Getting these things deep into a deep sand bed constantly via the right amount of flow through it and/or transport by benthic fauna is the trick. Too little flow in the bed can leave the bottom areas sterile . If some organics are down there without an adequate influx of oxygen or nitrate for respiration the facutative bacteria will perish and sulfate reducing bacteria will feed on any scraps of organic carbon while respiring the O from sulfate (SO4) generating toxic hydrogen sulfide as a by product.
In essence these bacteria are aerobic and when there is no oxygen present they respire anaerobicly( ie using the O from NO3),so they need at least NO3 to thrive along with organic carbon ( they are non photosynthetic / heterotrophic ;so they don't make their own organic carbon) and phosphate for food.
Getting these things deep into a deep sand bed constantly via the right amount of flow through it and/or transport by benthic fauna is the trick. Too little flow in the bed can leave the bottom areas sterile . If some organics are down there without an adequate influx of oxygen or nitrate for respiration the facutative bacteria will perish and sulfate reducing bacteria will feed on any scraps of organic carbon while respiring the O from sulfate (SO4) generating toxic hydrogen sulfide as a by product.
Thanks for getting the spelling on facultative right. I messed it up in my post.
In essence these bacteria are aerobic and when there is no oxygen present they respire anaerobicly( ie using the O from NO3),so they need at least NO3 to thrive along with organic carbon ( they are non photosynthetic / heterotrophic ;so they don't make their own organic carbon) and phosphate for food.
Getting these things deep into a deep sand bed constantly via the right amount of flow through it and/or transport by benthic fauna is the trick. Too little flow in the bed can leave the bottom areas sterile . If some organics are down there without an adequate influx of oxygen or nitrate for respiration the facultative bacteria will perish and sulfate reducing bacteria will feed on any scraps of organic carbon while respiring the O from sulfate (SO4) generating toxic hydrogen sulfide as a by product.
In essence these bacteria are aerobic and when there is no oxygen present they respire anaerobicly( ie using the O from NO3),so they need at least NO3 to thrive along with organic carbon ( they are non photosynthetic / heterotrophic ;so they don't make their own organic carbon) and phosphate for food.
Getting these things deep into a deep sand bed constantly via the right amount of flow through it and/or transport by benthic fauna is the trick. Too little flow in the bed can leave the bottom areas sterile . If some organics are down there without an adequate influx of oxygen or nitrate for respiration the facultative bacteria will perish and sulfate reducing bacteria will feed on any scraps of organic carbon while respiring the O from sulfate (SO4) generating toxic hydrogen sulfide as a by product.
elegance coral
They call me EC
Did you ever get that information from your university to support your statements? It would be great to have someone in this conversation with access to a university library and/or professor. The information you have access to could prove priceless to this topic.
If you did go back and research your statements, I'm sure you discovered that TMZ/Tom was correct on all accounts. I hope you don't let that discourage you from joining the conversation.
One thing though. The fact that you are an environmental science major and we don't know TMZ/Tom's "professional" status, (or anyone's) is irrelevant. It doesn't make what's being said any more or less true. The "Father of the modern DSB" holds a doctorates, but IMHO, 98% of what he says is either wrong or misleading.
That's the first time I've ever heard somebody complain about cyano getting decimated by a sea cucumber. I'd love to see the source you dragged that one from.
The only conch which might bulldoze corals would be a Queen Conch. Way to big for 99% of the tanks we keep. Fighting conches on the other hand don't bother my corals one bit.
Define very low NO3. The only nitrate studies I've seen on sand beds by themselves show that they can keep up with any source, but they don't keep the nitrate levels all that close to zero. Now if you starve your tank then they can be near zero, but if you starve your tank then it's no wonder it crashed. The fauna that keeps detris in the sand bed cycled needs a steady diet of fresh food as well as detris. Otherwise you might well see a buildup and breakdown. Note that the ocean never changes it's sand out. It's also quite an assumption on your part that the sand bed was the cause of whatever breakdown you experienced. I can easily tick of a dozen more likely suspects.
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2005/6/aafeature
The above article shows that the sand bed will keep NO3 down, but the steady state amounts will vary based upon import rates (feeding).
This statement is proven false by the study listed above. Effective nitrification and denitrification occured in all sand beds, whether one inch, or 6 inches. The fact that we don't understand the mechanism doesn't alter the fact that it happens.
No sand export or replacement is necessary, that's what those worms, the sea cucumber, and the conches take care of. Ordering a new sand kit of worms and sand fauna every couple of years is a good idea, but hardly more work than other export techniques.
Strombus alatus (fighting conch ) grows to 4 inches. Moves stuff around eaisly, ime. Strombus (gigas) at 16 inches , is obviously unsuitable for most aquairiums.
That's the first time I've ever heard somebody complain about cyano getting decimated by a sea cucumber. I'd love to see the source you dragged that one from.
Sea cucumbers(Holothuria) eat bacteria not just cayano bacteria(if your seriously thought protectiing cyanobacteria was my meaning) as they pass the sand grains through their digestive system .They can also produce harmful toxins when stressed. Why do you think they would avoid beneficail bacteria?
Deep beds can and do keep nitrates low( under 10ppm or less) if flow to the lower areas is maintained . No need to starve the tank and I keep over 40 well fed fish.
After 7 years my deep sand bed tank did not crash ;never said it did; your argument conveniently misstates the facts . As I stated numerous times in this thread. I like deep beds for their aesthetics and habitat.If properly maintained they can last for years but after time the sand becomes coated and clogged leading to problems if it is not replenished periodically or replaced. They take work and there are alternatives for nitrate reduction including shallow beds,bare bottom .etc.
In my case after 7 years the nitrates and phosphates in the(550 g) system which integrates the tank with others (some bare bottom some with sand) rose. Siphoning out most of the old sand helped.Nitrates are now now consistently .2 to.5 ppm with phosphate <0.05ppm.
The study cited in your post has been cited earlier in this thread. It does not prove deep beds are particularly efficient at NO3 reduction but suggests the opposite.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmz View Post
But advection and diffusion alone are inadequate to insure enough flow deep into the bed to deliver nutrients and oxygen or NO3 for the faculative heterotrophic bacteria that perform nitrification and denitrification.
This statement is proven false by the study listed above. Effective nitrification and denitrification occured in all sand beds, whether one inch, or 6 inches. The fact that we don't understand the mechanism doesn't alter the fact that it happens
That's not an accurate representation of the study. There was no difference between deep and shallow beds in the study in terms of nitrate removal. The study suggests shallow beds are just as good as deep ones. It certainly dispels the old idea widely held notion that you must have deep bed for denitrification to occur. This should not be surprising given the nature of the bacteria involved in denitrification and the scenario of the study wherein the deeper sand was not channeled or subject to much advection.
If there was adequate flow to the lower areas of the deeper bed to deliver C,N and P then the additional surface area in the deep part of the bed should have worked as well as the upper areas thus producing more nitrate reduction by the facultative heterotrophs than the shallower beds did. Advection was not in play in the study beyond the footprints of the sand grains ; the amount of upwelling and consequent downward flow depends on the speed of the current and the size of the obstruction. So a tank with live rock should have more upwelling than a bare bed . Suggesting this study proved advection a false concept is exactly the opposite of what it suggests and contrary to the physics of water movement.
Deep beds are nice aesthetically to some; not to others. I personally like them and the diversity of life they offer. They are a valid choice among a number of choices. They need replenishment/replaement and maintenance or in time, generally a period of years, they can become a toxic dump.
That's the first time I've ever heard somebody complain about cyano getting decimated by a sea cucumber. I'd love to see the source you dragged that one from.
Sea cucumbers(Holothuria) eat bacteria not just cayano bacteria(if your seriously thought protectiing cyanobacteria was my meaning) as they pass the sand grains through their digestive system .They can also produce harmful toxins when stressed. Why do you think they would avoid beneficail bacteria?
Deep beds can and do keep nitrates low( under 10ppm or less) if flow to the lower areas is maintained . No need to starve the tank and I keep over 40 well fed fish.
After 7 years my deep sand bed tank did not crash ;never said it did; your argument conveniently misstates the facts . As I stated numerous times in this thread. I like deep beds for their aesthetics and habitat.If properly maintained they can last for years but after time the sand becomes coated and clogged leading to problems if it is not replenished periodically or replaced. They take work and there are alternatives for nitrate reduction including shallow beds,bare bottom .etc.
In my case after 7 years the nitrates and phosphates in the(550 g) system which integrates the tank with others (some bare bottom some with sand) rose. Siphoning out most of the old sand helped.Nitrates are now now consistently .2 to.5 ppm with phosphate <0.05ppm.
The study cited in your post has been cited earlier in this thread. It does not prove deep beds are particularly efficient at NO3 reduction but suggests the opposite.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmz View Post
But advection and diffusion alone are inadequate to insure enough flow deep into the bed to deliver nutrients and oxygen or NO3 for the faculative heterotrophic bacteria that perform nitrification and denitrification.
This statement is proven false by the study listed above. Effective nitrification and denitrification occured in all sand beds, whether one inch, or 6 inches. The fact that we don't understand the mechanism doesn't alter the fact that it happens
That's not an accurate representation of the study. There was no difference between deep and shallow beds in the study in terms of nitrate removal. The study suggests shallow beds are just as good as deep ones. It certainly dispels the old idea widely held notion that you must have deep bed for denitrification to occur. This should not be surprising given the nature of the bacteria involved in denitrification and the scenario of the study wherein the deeper sand was not channeled or subject to much advection.
If there was adequate flow to the lower areas of the deeper bed to deliver C,N and P then the additional surface area in the deep part of the bed should have worked as well as the upper areas thus producing more nitrate reduction by the facultative heterotrophs than the shallower beds did. Advection was not in play in the study beyond the footprints of the sand grains ; the amount of upwelling and consequent downward flow depends on the speed of the current and the size of the obstruction. So a tank with live rock should have more upwelling than a bare bed . Suggesting this study proved advection a false concept is exactly the opposite of what it suggests and contrary to the physics of water movement.
Deep beds are nice aesthetically to some; not to others. I personally like them and the diversity of life they offer. They are a valid choice among a number of choices. They need replenishment/replaement and maintenance or in time, generally a period of years, they can become a toxic dump.
I seriously think you are giving out very bad information to claim that sea cucumbers will decimate the good bacteria in your system. Yes they will eat surface sand bacteria (bad and good), but that is not a negative thing and as expected you do not have a source for the claim that they cause any harm from grazing.
Good, then we are mostly in agreement except that you haven't shown there is much time involved in maintaining a sand bed.
Not sure we agree very much on how deep sand beds work at all or how much effort it takes to keep them functional or their useful life.
Searching denitrfication,old tank syndrome, the effects of phosphate on coral calcification, nitrate , advection, denitrifying bacteria, etc. can add information and references to a number of studies for those who wish to go further. Sprung and Delbeek offer a wealth of information on many of these subjects in The Reef Aquairium Vol 3. as well.
I seriously think you are giving out very bad information to claim that sea cucumbers will decimate the good bacteria in your system. Yes they will eat surface sand bacteria (bad and good), but that is not a negative thing and as expected you do not have a source for the claim that they cause any harm from grazing.
I said the use of sea cucumbers was debateable which means there are varying points of view. I also said they can(not will) decimate bacterial populations. Correcting misstatements is tedious.Please try to quote or paraphrase accurately.
As for references you can do your own search of the boards or the literature and find many debates about toxicity, starvation, overall risk and benefit and bacterial colonization. I would advise a potential keeper of these animals to do so.
Seriously:If they eat beneficial bacteria how could that be good? Why do you think one could not decimate the bacterial population ?
I am not giving out bad information, nor am I prescribing ,as you did, nor proscribing them. The facts: that they eat bacteria from the sand surfaces where denitrifying bacteria thrive;may give off toxins when stressed or dying and; may starve in aquariums without heavy feeding and consequent high nutrients are realistic caveats on the downside. Cleaning and moving the sand about and perhaps helping with cyanobacteria control in a nutrient rich tank is an upside. The caution provided is warranted so folks can make an informed decision about keeping one in their particular aquarium or choosing not to do so. In contrast you instruct folks to use them without complete information ; not even a note about any potential toxicity,ptetial harm from powerheads,etc. .Now that is at best incomplete information.
"Once you start seeing some Cyano on the sand then add either a Tiger Tail Sea Cucumber or a one of the smaller "Holothuria floridana" sea cucumbers depending on the size of your tank.."
I think they are neat critters that carry the risks of toxicity,the consumption of beneficial bacteria and starvation without lot's of food and detritus to feed on which may not be consistent with goals related to the needs of various corals for low PO4, NO3 and organics.
Searching denitrfication,old tank syndrome, the effects of phosphate on coral calcification, nitrate , advection, denitrifying bacteria, etc. can add information and references to a number of studies for those who wish to go further. Sprung and Delbeek offer a wealth of information on many of these subjects in The Reef Aquairium Vol 3. as well.
I seriously think you are giving out very bad information to claim that sea cucumbers will decimate the good bacteria in your system. Yes they will eat surface sand bacteria (bad and good), but that is not a negative thing and as expected you do not have a source for the claim that they cause any harm from grazing.
I said the use of sea cucumbers was debateable which means there are varying points of view. I also said they can(not will) decimate bacterial populations. Correcting misstatements is tedious.Please try to quote or paraphrase accurately.
As for references you can do your own search of the boards or the literature and find many debates about toxicity, starvation, overall risk and benefit and bacterial colonization. I would advise a potential keeper of these animals to do so.
Seriously:If they eat beneficial bacteria how could that be good? Why do you think one could not decimate the bacterial population ?
I am not giving out bad information, nor am I prescribing ,as you did, nor proscribing them. The facts: that they eat bacteria from the sand surfaces where denitrifying bacteria thrive;may give off toxins when stressed or dying and; may starve in aquariums without heavy feeding and consequent high nutrients are realistic caveats on the downside. Cleaning and moving the sand about and perhaps helping with cyanobacteria control in a nutrient rich tank is an upside. The caution provided is warranted so folks can make an informed decision about keeping one in their particular aquarium or choosing not to do so. In contrast you instruct folks to use them without complete information ; not even a note about any potential toxicity,ptetial harm from powerheads,etc. .Now that is at best incomplete information.
"Once you start seeing some Cyano on the sand then add either a Tiger Tail Sea Cucumber or a one of the smaller "Holothuria floridana" sea cucumbers depending on the size of your tank.."
I think they are neat critters that carry the risks of toxicity,the consumption of beneficial bacteria and starvation without lot's of food and detritus to feed on which may not be consistent with goals related to the needs of various corals for low PO4, NO3 and organics.
You make it sound like bacteria doesn't reproduce. If you put a snail in your tank are you under the delusion that you'll never have to scrape algae off your glass again? Algae has nothing on bacteria when it comes to reproduction rates. Second a Sea Cucumber only eats off the surface of the sand bed which is a small fraction of your bacteria surface area. Third the cucumber is eating the detris that bacteria would otherwise have to break down, so it's reducing the filtration load the bacteria has to handle. Forth if you are advocating removal of sand for replenishment then you are also removing beneficial bacteria with that sand. You don't warn folks about that because it is not a problem, nor is the amount of beneficial bacteria that a cucumber eats. To suggest otherwise requires some evidence which you do not have.
While I'm not sure I completely trust them, Live Aquaria does state that two of the three sand sifting Cucumber's they sell do NOT have Cuvierian tubules which can produce toxins when stressed. So the aquarists does have options in this regard.
Well, I don't think I'm delusional, but you never know.
I don't believe you know bacterial reproduction rates for denitrifying bacteria. Do you;or are you just assuming enough will reproduce to make up for what the cucumber eats? I think that's a reach particularly given the time it takes for denitrification cycles and anaerobic digestion to get in gear as well as a myriad of variables from tank to tank.
I'd like to see your evidence on reproductive rates for denitrifying bacteria. All in all ,I still think the fact that sea cucumbers consume beneficial bacteria is a consideration worth noting. Leaving the choice on wether or not to use one to the informed aquarist based on individual preference and the style of the particular aquarium one wishes to keep.
I don't believe you know bacterial reproduction rates for denitrifying bacteria. Do you;or are you just assuming enough will reproduce to make up for what the cucumber eats? I think that's a reach particularly given the time it takes for denitrification cycles and anaerobic digestion to get in gear as well as a myriad of variables from tank to tank.
I'd like to see your evidence on reproductive rates for denitrifying bacteria. All in all ,I still think the fact that sea cucumbers consume beneficial bacteria is a consideration worth noting. Leaving the choice on wether or not to use one to the informed aquarist based on individual preference and the style of the particular aquarium one wishes to keep.
For the sake of argument, let's assume for the moment that a Sea Cucumber could keep denitrifying bacteria populations near zero on the sand surface. There will still be be enough denitrifying backteria below the feeding line to take care of a well fed tank. Therefore you are asking people to consider something that isn't an issue.
For those who are interested in learning more about Sea Cucumbers.
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/jan2003/invert.htm
The author does not sugar coat potential problems with Sea Cucumbers, but nowhere will you find the slightest hint of concern about decimating good bacteria levels. In the end you'll notice that the author keeps at least one sea cucumber in each of his reef tanks.
For those who are interested in learning more about Sea Cucumbers.
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/jan2003/invert.htm
The author does not sugar coat potential problems with Sea Cucumbers, but nowhere will you find the slightest hint of concern about decimating good bacteria levels. In the end you'll notice that the author keeps at least one sea cucumber in each of his reef tanks.
There will still be be enough denitrifying bacteria below the feeding line in a well fed tank
How do you know that?
Maybe /maybe not depending on conditions in the tank including C,N, P availability , the condition the water , the condition of the sand bed and the reproductive rate of the bacteria involved.
BTW I've kept several holothuria. Even had one split when I ran high nutrient tanks without a skimmer and very few but hardy corals and macro algae. Nice ,useful critters but may not be suited for all tanks with sand beds.
I've read that article several times over the years, it has very good information . The author doesn't describe his tanks and feeding practices though which would have been helpful.
The effects of the bacteria consumption are not addressed in the article one way or the other. The article clearly and shows keeping one is a debateable issue with risks of starvation.,evisceration, toxicity, damage from pumps etc. despite the author's stated affinity for them. All of these are valid concerns as are the effects a cucumber can have on bacteria in a particular tank.
This not "very bad "or "delusional" information and for clarity's sake I'm not concerned about any cyano bacteria and cucumber may or may not consume.
I think there is now adequate information in the thread for folks to make informed decisions about wether or not to keep one specific to their aquariums.
How do you know that?
Maybe /maybe not depending on conditions in the tank including C,N, P availability , the condition the water , the condition of the sand bed and the reproductive rate of the bacteria involved.
BTW I've kept several holothuria. Even had one split when I ran high nutrient tanks without a skimmer and very few but hardy corals and macro algae. Nice ,useful critters but may not be suited for all tanks with sand beds.
I've read that article several times over the years, it has very good information . The author doesn't describe his tanks and feeding practices though which would have been helpful.
The effects of the bacteria consumption are not addressed in the article one way or the other. The article clearly and shows keeping one is a debateable issue with risks of starvation.,evisceration, toxicity, damage from pumps etc. despite the author's stated affinity for them. All of these are valid concerns as are the effects a cucumber can have on bacteria in a particular tank.
This not "very bad "or "delusional" information and for clarity's sake I'm not concerned about any cyano bacteria and cucumber may or may not consume.
I think there is now adequate information in the thread for folks to make informed decisions about wether or not to keep one specific to their aquariums.
EdKruzel
Premium Member
TMZ,
I'm afraid I have to disagree with you (to a degree). If one has the discipline to run a proper DSB, there are no needs for maintenance or replacement. Unfortunately most hobbyists do not have the discipline and should run a remote DSB.
Many of our favorite fish and hermits are listed as sand bed cleaners when they should be listed as sand bed decimators. Fauna and micro fauna are the life lines to a successful DSB and these creatures (Gobies, Wrasse & Hermits etc...) will wipe them out in even the largest home aquariums in a relatively short amount of time.
I have kept numerous tanks since the late 70's. Not really understanding that I was doing something correct I ran an all natural tank for three years living on the coast in Panama. Everything in that tank came from the sea to include the regular water changes.
I ran two tanks with a DSB and proper discipline for 8 and 10yrs before being dismantled and they never had a problem and kept excellent parameters and thriving livestock. I've also had DSB's and tempted fate with a must have fish or two and the outcome was not what I'd call outstanding. :thumbdown
I did run a small tank with a remote DSB twice the size of the main system; this was a wonderful setup that was seamless, however I was only able to run it a few years before the government decided it was time to transfer me yet again. I will forever run a DSB, but depending on my choice of livestock will determine if it's to be in the main system or remote.
I'm afraid I have to disagree with you (to a degree). If one has the discipline to run a proper DSB, there are no needs for maintenance or replacement. Unfortunately most hobbyists do not have the discipline and should run a remote DSB.
Many of our favorite fish and hermits are listed as sand bed cleaners when they should be listed as sand bed decimators. Fauna and micro fauna are the life lines to a successful DSB and these creatures (Gobies, Wrasse & Hermits etc...) will wipe them out in even the largest home aquariums in a relatively short amount of time.
I have kept numerous tanks since the late 70's. Not really understanding that I was doing something correct I ran an all natural tank for three years living on the coast in Panama. Everything in that tank came from the sea to include the regular water changes.
I ran two tanks with a DSB and proper discipline for 8 and 10yrs before being dismantled and they never had a problem and kept excellent parameters and thriving livestock. I've also had DSB's and tempted fate with a must have fish or two and the outcome was not what I'd call outstanding. :thumbdown
I did run a small tank with a remote DSB twice the size of the main system; this was a wonderful setup that was seamless, however I was only able to run it a few years before the government decided it was time to transfer me yet again. I will forever run a DSB, but depending on my choice of livestock will determine if it's to be in the main system or remote.
Good to hear Ed. First ,I recall hearing about that went longer than the 7/8 yrs I kept one, There are many who experience difficulty after only a few years though.
Perhaps you could list some of the methods you employed as "proper discipline" and some of the livestock you kept.
Perhaps you could list some of the methods you employed as "proper discipline" and some of the livestock you kept.
EdKruzel
Premium Member
Tom,
I think proper discipline really refers to livestock you don't keep. :sad2:
Anything that eats fauna or violently disrupts the sand (usually both) is detrimental to a DSB. Many of the wrasse family will dig and eat beneficial worms and pods as will sand sifting gobies and thick bodied starfish like the Chocolate Chip (Protoreastor nodosus). Many of the ornamental shrimp and certainly most hermits will devour anything they can catch. Therefore you're left with a very limited selection. Granted if the tank is large you can get away with a few of the above listed items. I had a pair of Coral Bandits in a 200 with no noticeable effect, but when I added a pair to a 34 cube, the DSB became a maintenance nightmare. Smaller hermits like blue legged and scarlet's are okay at about the rate of one per square foot of surface sand.
For DSB maintenance I really like Queen Conchs; I know they grow huge. Most larger communities have a need for bigger Conchs where the average home hobbyists don't. I always had a good relationship with an LFS that would trade a larger Conch for a small. In smaller systems I swapped them out every three to four months but in my larger tanks I could go over a year before I was concerned over their size.
One thing we can all relate to is the impulse buy; it took me years to get over that and research each and every item I add to a tank.
Another concern is surface space and water flow when keeping deeper beds. As a general rule I will never have more than 1/3rd of the surface sand bed with rock on top of it; the more exposed sand the better and the more alternating current in the tank the better.
It's too bad we can't all have a dedicated fish room like so many TOTM's we envy in RK magazine. To truly have it all we need a shallow sand bed in the main tank with any and all livestock we wish and a remote DSB at least twice the main tank volume with nothing but fauna and beneficial specimens. The small hang on the tank refugiums are worthless for a DSB and cannot hold the volume most need in macro's for sufficient Nitrate reduction. They do make very nice pod breeding stations being predators cannot access them.
I think proper discipline really refers to livestock you don't keep. :sad2:
Anything that eats fauna or violently disrupts the sand (usually both) is detrimental to a DSB. Many of the wrasse family will dig and eat beneficial worms and pods as will sand sifting gobies and thick bodied starfish like the Chocolate Chip (Protoreastor nodosus). Many of the ornamental shrimp and certainly most hermits will devour anything they can catch. Therefore you're left with a very limited selection. Granted if the tank is large you can get away with a few of the above listed items. I had a pair of Coral Bandits in a 200 with no noticeable effect, but when I added a pair to a 34 cube, the DSB became a maintenance nightmare. Smaller hermits like blue legged and scarlet's are okay at about the rate of one per square foot of surface sand.
For DSB maintenance I really like Queen Conchs; I know they grow huge. Most larger communities have a need for bigger Conchs where the average home hobbyists don't. I always had a good relationship with an LFS that would trade a larger Conch for a small. In smaller systems I swapped them out every three to four months but in my larger tanks I could go over a year before I was concerned over their size.
One thing we can all relate to is the impulse buy; it took me years to get over that and research each and every item I add to a tank.
Another concern is surface space and water flow when keeping deeper beds. As a general rule I will never have more than 1/3rd of the surface sand bed with rock on top of it; the more exposed sand the better and the more alternating current in the tank the better.
It's too bad we can't all have a dedicated fish room like so many TOTM's we envy in RK magazine. To truly have it all we need a shallow sand bed in the main tank with any and all livestock we wish and a remote DSB at least twice the main tank volume with nothing but fauna and beneficial specimens. The small hang on the tank refugiums are worthless for a DSB and cannot hold the volume most need in macro's for sufficient Nitrate reduction. They do make very nice pod breeding stations being predators cannot access them.
