Deep Sand Bed?
- Thread starter Jaculus
- Start date
Jaculus
New member
OK,, then if a DSB that is properly set up and maintained by replacing substrate at some level in some frequency can work why would I not make it ONE of the filtration methods of my system? I know GFO and Carbon can do the primary objective of nitrate and Po4 reduction. In a larger tank system I use a TON of Carbon and GFO. IF I can naturally reduce the amount of GFO and Carbon I use since I have the space for a RDSB,, why would I not want to?
I still have not found anything specific to say why NOT to run a RDSB. Of course there are those that say it is a ticking time bomb just waiting to erupt and crash the tank. That only happens with abuse, neglect and improper set up and maintenance. Which by the way will crash any system.
When I do any research on this reading the science of a DSB it makes sense. Again, the only thing against a DSB when properly setup and maintained can crash after many years. But most agree that the hype over the crashing of DSB's are not unlike nearly any filtration method that is neglected.
I think I read on the advanced section debating DSB's that someone counted the Tank of the Months for the last four years or so and found that most WERE DSB of some sort. Not that it makes it the right thing,,, BUT it does say it can be done right and many do it right.
I still have not found anything specific to say why NOT to run a RDSB. Of course there are those that say it is a ticking time bomb just waiting to erupt and crash the tank. That only happens with abuse, neglect and improper set up and maintenance. Which by the way will crash any system.
When I do any research on this reading the science of a DSB it makes sense. Again, the only thing against a DSB when properly setup and maintained can crash after many years. But most agree that the hype over the crashing of DSB's are not unlike nearly any filtration method that is neglected.
I think I read on the advanced section debating DSB's that someone counted the Tank of the Months for the last four years or so and found that most WERE DSB of some sort. Not that it makes it the right thing,,, BUT it does say it can be done right and many do it right.
Last edited:
Kreeger1
KING LEAR
Early 2000 maybe but the last 4 years I'd be shocked if more then 20% had a rdsb or a dsb in the display. it is what it is, a out dated way to run your tank. It will work but the technology behind a good skimmer far surpasses the potential trouble with a dsb. I've never heard my skimmer crashed and wiped my tank. I've had a dsb do that and I've heard countless stories of the same. Not trying to beat a dead horse, it's already been done. Your tank run like you want.
Jaculus
New member
Well for the record I am not saying this is a debate on DSB's. Heck I am a relative noob compared to many here with the few years I have been doing this. But, again simply saying I can do it a new way does not make the old way wrong. Until I find some scientific reason that running a DSB is bad that refutes all the people that have had success running DSB's (along with other forms of filtration ,,, skimmer ,, soem GFO etc) I will do it that way. It seems the science we do have supports the DSB method also. Simply saying we heard of a lot fo tanks crashing that had DSB's so we should not use them is not science. Skimmers fail too by the way simply by not keeping impellers cleaned or running too wet or thick etc.
I have read that 15 page 900+ thread on the advanced section twice now. I still come away from it saying "why not"? Properly taken care of and maintained by removing the substrate in sections that apparently is EVENTUALLY filling up with the bonded phosphates is the one main thing that makes DSB's work over many years.
I have read that 15 page 900+ thread on the advanced section twice now. I still come away from it saying "why not"? Properly taken care of and maintained by removing the substrate in sections that apparently is EVENTUALLY filling up with the bonded phosphates is the one main thing that makes DSB's work over many years.
Big E
Premium Member
I didn't say to read that thread...........I said to go back into the archives and read the DSB threads. Especially the ones that have username "Bomber' in them.
There is no science to back up anything that DSB's have this fantastic success rate in aquariums................absolutely none.
Besides that ,you read that thread with a bias.............there's as much science that backs up the other side. If you want to read other links that don't take sides and actually evaluate the science PM me and I can link you to science from other forums that are actually evaluating it without a bias and objectively.
Most of the people that take sides on this sell it...............like that Mariculture guy you mentioned. There used to be dozens of places that sold those sand bug and worm kits and now there are very few. No one is using them anymore.
All systems are bacterial driven not reliant on bugs, worms, and sand.
You have to realize like Erik said, the technology has left DSB's behind. The bio pellets weren't around back then or some of the many nitrate/phosphate reducers that are on the market now. Most are carbon based dosing sources that use vinegar & vodka.
They are much more efficient than a DSB.
There is no science to back up anything that DSB's have this fantastic success rate in aquariums................absolutely none.
Besides that ,you read that thread with a bias.............there's as much science that backs up the other side. If you want to read other links that don't take sides and actually evaluate the science PM me and I can link you to science from other forums that are actually evaluating it without a bias and objectively.
Most of the people that take sides on this sell it...............like that Mariculture guy you mentioned. There used to be dozens of places that sold those sand bug and worm kits and now there are very few. No one is using them anymore.
All systems are bacterial driven not reliant on bugs, worms, and sand.
You have to realize like Erik said, the technology has left DSB's behind. The bio pellets weren't around back then or some of the many nitrate/phosphate reducers that are on the market now. Most are carbon based dosing sources that use vinegar & vodka.
They are much more efficient than a DSB.
Last edited:
Big E
Premium Member
Show me anywhere in this article where he mentions Phosphate. That is what fuels most of the issues with cyano , nuisance algae, slow growth in corals, ect.
I don't disagree with anything that guy says in the article..............sand is part of the nitrogen cycle in nature. It's not needed in an aquarium.........Live Rock does the same thing and it's more effiecent because it porous on all sides.
I'm not going to go on any further..................do what you want it's your set up.
Jaculus
New member
Just for the record,, I have decided I am NOT going to use a RDSB for now. I just decided that I did not want to have to replenish the fauna so often etc and I realized I actually have a fairly well setup DSB in my wifes FOWLR tank that is part of the system. I still think that DSB's are a valid option for some and if a person knows what is going on in a DSB/RDSB it can be done well and productive especially if one has a plan to replace sections of the substrate every couple or few years.
I decided to add more live rock for in the front section of my refugium and the back section will just be ramped up with better led lighting to grow Chaeto (never been able to grow it well) and my mexican Grape Calurpa. SOMEDAY ,, I might,, MIGHT try to grow some Mangroves also.
So the debate of DSB/RDSB for me is at least over now LOL.
I decided to add more live rock for in the front section of my refugium and the back section will just be ramped up with better led lighting to grow Chaeto (never been able to grow it well) and my mexican Grape Calurpa. SOMEDAY ,, I might,, MIGHT try to grow some Mangroves also.
So the debate of DSB/RDSB for me is at least over now LOL.
rockslide123
New member
I came to a similar conclusion. I think DSBs are workable and can be a potential asset but the frequency and cost of critter replacement and periodic substrate replacement coupled with no quantitative way to measure the status of that system make it more trouble than I care to manage.
Similar threads
