Dsb's work, what makes them work best?
- Thread starter barryhc
- Start date
I know I'm going against the grain here a little bit. I would suggest that aragonite sand would be the preferable sand over silica or other substrates for a NEW tank for reasons other than the smoothness that is commonly mentioned.
Here's my logic. Let's throw the spaghetti against the wall and see if it sticks.
Bacteria need phosphate to both live and to reproduce. When setting up a tank, we want a good bacterial population to perform nitrification and denitrification for us as soon as possible. Any aragonite sand you put in your tank is already going to have phosphates adsorbed to it whether it was mined or pulled out of the ocean. In other words, a limiting factor for bacterial life/growth/reproduction has already been provided. I would surmise that you can populate your sandbed quicker as a result.
Now obviously, using ANY kind of substrate will allow bacteria to grow. My thoughts above are simply related to the quickness of growing your bacterial population in your bed. I could be wrong...it just seems to make sense to me. If you are not in a hurry, I don't think it matters one way nor the other.
Here's some background for newbies. Bacteria populations are rather dynamic. If there is additional "food" for them to expand, they will do so and they will do it quickly. That's because they have a number of ways of reproduction and their populations grow exponentially. I.e. 1 bacterium becomes 2. 2 become 4, 4 become 8, 8 become 16, etc. Different species of bacteria can do this over varying periods of time but many species can do this over a period of a half hour or so. (BTW...the example I gave above is actually wrong but I don't want to go into logarithm's. The example above should at least give you an idea). If you find that you seek additional info on bacteria, here's a great "Bacteria for Dummies" link. http://www.bact.wisc.edu/Microtextb...ons&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=9&page=1
Here's my logic. Let's throw the spaghetti against the wall and see if it sticks.
Bacteria need phosphate to both live and to reproduce. When setting up a tank, we want a good bacterial population to perform nitrification and denitrification for us as soon as possible. Any aragonite sand you put in your tank is already going to have phosphates adsorbed to it whether it was mined or pulled out of the ocean. In other words, a limiting factor for bacterial life/growth/reproduction has already been provided. I would surmise that you can populate your sandbed quicker as a result.
Now obviously, using ANY kind of substrate will allow bacteria to grow. My thoughts above are simply related to the quickness of growing your bacterial population in your bed. I could be wrong...it just seems to make sense to me. If you are not in a hurry, I don't think it matters one way nor the other.
Here's some background for newbies. Bacteria populations are rather dynamic. If there is additional "food" for them to expand, they will do so and they will do it quickly. That's because they have a number of ways of reproduction and their populations grow exponentially. I.e. 1 bacterium becomes 2. 2 become 4, 4 become 8, 8 become 16, etc. Different species of bacteria can do this over varying periods of time but many species can do this over a period of a half hour or so. (BTW...the example I gave above is actually wrong but I don't want to go into logarithm's. The example above should at least give you an idea). If you find that you seek additional info on bacteria, here's a great "Bacteria for Dummies" link. http://www.bact.wisc.edu/Microtextb...ons&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=9&page=1
Amphiprionocellaris
New member
I only partially agree. I wasn't talking about a tank-consuming bloom of algae; that is indeed a sign of a problem. I was talking about little blooms of algae; say, a little hair algae in a corner of the tank. It's a sign of phosphate, but the phosphate is locked up in the algae, rather than being in the water column where it can do harm (one principle of a refugium). Perhaps that phosphate came from waste that didn't make it into an area where it could be processed. All I'm saying is that algae (small blooms that affect aesthetics, not the big ones that kill stuff) shouldn't automatically be considered a sign of a bad DSB. Algae can be, and often is, a product of a bad sand bed, but not all algae comes from having a bad bed.<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6468650#post6468650 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by joefish
Algae is proof that all is not right . What does algae need to grow ?PO4 .
Now , If you don't mind seeing nuisance algae and the tank is geared twards soft Corals . Then you might be correct .
If you are geared more to Stony corals , they don't do well with PO4 present . SPS's realy does not like PO4 at all .
So nuisance algae is a sign of PO4 , and PO4 is bad . Then I would think that nuisance algae is a symtom of a worse problem .
Sindjin
New member
I agree. You can have hair algae growing on one spot on one piece of Live Rock because there is detritus being spewed out of the rock from that one spot. The undeterminable factor is the reason why so many are beginning to see the benefits of cooking rock.... to hopefully assure the fact that no algae will be introduced to the tank....and that the live rock will be completely shed of internal detritus. It just gives the Reefer that much more control.
I don't think so. LR already has a lot of bacteria to begin with so your off to a better start, has less phosphates than mined rock, has some other critters that are interesting to look at. If cured properly, the dieoff that occurs due to transportation won't be an issue when added to your tank.
Amphiprionocellaris
New member
If a new set-up uses only base rock, where is the life going to come from? If you seed it with other live rock, oftentimes, the first thing to colonize the dead rock is microalgae, though that is often shoved out of the way by other life. There's really no substitute for well-cured live rock. How much and how you cure the rock are subjects that can be [and are] debated, but IMO, they all beat base rock (especially considering that base rock is usually a lot less porous than natural live rock).
kbmdale
In Memoriam
For instance, I started a set-up with 10lbs of LR and 40lbs of dry base rock.. After 6 weeks you could tell no difference. As far as the base rock being less porous, I disagree..Its the same rock just dead..Or at my lfs it is. Now I can't speak of TBS or the really really good quality LR, I haven't found any that quality around here. But in May when I take the trip to FT. Myers for the in-law visit/vacation I will stop by TBS and pick up some of thier rock.
King-Kong
New member
This deserves more attention.
On many levels base rock is more environmentally responsible, cheaper, and (if its a reasonable expectation) it isnt packed with dead organics, then it is also an alternative to cooking large amounts of rock.
When I setup my 90g, I used about 20lb of cured (year old in my 20g) rock, and the rest was all base rock. It's been 3 months now, and the base rock (certain areas that are properly lit, receiving proper flow) is covered by corraline (50%++)
I cant even defend buying all live rock anymore. I will never again do it, and will maintain a 25%/75% ratio for the future.
If we're only introducing small amounts of live rock to our tanks, then cooking may not be as important, or cooking would be easier, as we have less rock to work on.
Sindjin
New member
I used 50lbs of base rock from reeferrocks.com. It was really nice, porous rock.... I would reccomend it! It still had a lot of debris inside it....even though it was dead rock. So even if you set up a new tank with Base Rock, I would still put it thru a cleaning process...it will just take a lot less time than Cooking Live Rock.
If you Cook Live Rock, you will end up with well cured rock, algae free and still full of life. Pods, Crabs, Snails, TubeWorms, etc have all been reported to survive 3 to 6 months of Cooking.
It would be nice to establish a NEW tank with brand new sand (if you want DSB) and clean base rock. Then you KNOW that from the very beginning you were in total control!
EDIT: I agree with King-Kong's post. Just seed the reef with Live Rock.
If you Cook Live Rock, you will end up with well cured rock, algae free and still full of life. Pods, Crabs, Snails, TubeWorms, etc have all been reported to survive 3 to 6 months of Cooking.
It would be nice to establish a NEW tank with brand new sand (if you want DSB) and clean base rock. Then you KNOW that from the very beginning you were in total control!
EDIT: I agree with King-Kong's post. Just seed the reef with Live Rock.
I realize that silica is frowned upon in some cases because of "potential" diatom blooms. I'm not particularly convinced, but of more importance, to me anyway, would be the smoothness.
Is silica that harmful to the animals, and if so, are there alternatives, that are available down to .1 or .2mm?
I still don't care for the idea of "mud" and "flour-szed" substrate in the display, for reasons of clumping, PO4 release, and poor diffusion charachteristics.
Fine in the refugium, if you like, but what is the "need" for these ultra fine particles in the display sand bed?
Does the "food chain" break down significantly, or entirely, if particles smaller than .1 mm are not used in the bed?
Thanks all, > barryhc
npaden
New member
I have 100% southdown fine grain sand in my display and don't have issues with sand storms unless something is wrong. The sand can shift a bit and move but it tends to stay on the bottom of the tank.
The issue with fine sand over coarse sand it it's ability to trap detritus IME. Detritus will sit on top of the fine grained sand but be trapped in the coarse sand. Also with the fine grained sand the aerobic area is not as large as with coarse sand.
FWIW, Nathan
The issue with fine sand over coarse sand it it's ability to trap detritus IME. Detritus will sit on top of the fine grained sand but be trapped in the coarse sand. Also with the fine grained sand the aerobic area is not as large as with coarse sand.
FWIW, Nathan
npaden
New member
Also, on the rock cooking issue. I cured my rock in my display with a brand new sandbed. It was the "plant rock" from walt smith and I worked out a deal where it was drop shipped to me directly with a person at LAX just relabeling the address and sending it on the next flight out to me. This rock arrived fresh from the ocean and was about 36 hours of transit time with wet newspapers and plastic bags. At the time walt smith left the plant rock in the ocean until time to ship and then pulled it out and packaged it with none of the "precuring" techniques. Other than dealing with a lot of sargassum growth at the start (which probably consumed any nutrients that were released from the rocks) I haven't had any issues with not "cooking" my rocks.
I also didn't jam pack my tank with rocks, I cured about 200lbs of rock in my 415g tank this way in 3 separate batches so I never had an ammonia or nitrite or even a nitrate spike that was measurable. I moved about 125lbs of rock from my existing tank after everything was up and running for a few months. Some of the rock that I have I got used from a tank that was completely covered in hair algae (I did scrub the rock with a toothbrush and dunked it in a bucket of tank water when I got the rock to clean the algae off of it) and that rock is getting close to 10 years old and has never been "cooked" and has no algae issues that I've noticed.
Just another opinion on rock cooking.
FWIW, Nathan
I also didn't jam pack my tank with rocks, I cured about 200lbs of rock in my 415g tank this way in 3 separate batches so I never had an ammonia or nitrite or even a nitrate spike that was measurable. I moved about 125lbs of rock from my existing tank after everything was up and running for a few months. Some of the rock that I have I got used from a tank that was completely covered in hair algae (I did scrub the rock with a toothbrush and dunked it in a bucket of tank water when I got the rock to clean the algae off of it) and that rock is getting close to 10 years old and has never been "cooked" and has no algae issues that I've noticed.
Just another opinion on rock cooking.
FWIW, Nathan
Good old Capt. Jer from reeferrocks. That is where my live rock came from too. Very nice stuff!! This is the stuff that I cured "unconventionaly" in the display tank.
I wouldn't do it again that way, but I have suffered no ill effects "thus far".
I'll probably go to reeferrocks again for the large tank that is "under construction". I agree with the 25% live rock formula, although I'll have to search a bit for the base rock. Carib Sea has some real nice stuff, but I haven't checked the price yet.
I have been considering making some aragacrete, but I'm not sure of it's long-term charachteristics.
The next time I "cure", I'll probably do it the same way, with crabs and snails and lights on 24/7, but not over the sand bed.
Happy Reef Keeping! > barryhc
I wouldn't do it again that way, but I have suffered no ill effects "thus far".
I'll probably go to reeferrocks again for the large tank that is "under construction". I agree with the 25% live rock formula, although I'll have to search a bit for the base rock. Carib Sea has some real nice stuff, but I haven't checked the price yet.
I have been considering making some aragacrete, but I'm not sure of it's long-term charachteristics.
The next time I "cure", I'll probably do it the same way, with crabs and snails and lights on 24/7, but not over the sand bed.
Happy Reef Keeping! > barryhc
If silica sand would dissolve enough to cause diatom blooms on your bed, then you would have diatoms on your glass and silicone seams as well. All it means is that you have silica in your system as well as phosphates.
Calcite and aragonite have the same chemical composition....CaCO3. However, there is a HUGE difference in solubility. I've used "sandblasters" sand before with no apparent problem.
I've had sandbeds with ESV sand which is pretty darn close to flour. I've have sandbeds with much larger particles. I've had sandbeds that were mixed. Frankly, if you want to exploit particle size to control bacteria (somewhat), there are ways to do it. However, if anyone thinks that bacteria are not going to do what they need to survive because they don't like larger grains, then they need to stop and think a bit and stop reading. There are innate drives in critters and eating and surviving and reproducing. The whole "requiring" a certain grain size is a fallacy IMO.
Calcite and aragonite have the same chemical composition....CaCO3. However, there is a HUGE difference in solubility. I've used "sandblasters" sand before with no apparent problem.
I've had sandbeds with ESV sand which is pretty darn close to flour. I've have sandbeds with much larger particles. I've had sandbeds that were mixed. Frankly, if you want to exploit particle size to control bacteria (somewhat), there are ways to do it. However, if anyone thinks that bacteria are not going to do what they need to survive because they don't like larger grains, then they need to stop and think a bit and stop reading. There are innate drives in critters and eating and surviving and reproducing. The whole "requiring" a certain grain size is a fallacy IMO.
npaden
New member
As a tip, in my realy high flow areas that have a hard time keeping sand in place, instead of putting larger grained sand there or crushed coral I put some types of rubble there. Empty snail shells, small pieces of live rock, etc. This seems to be pretty effective in keeping the sand in place without it becoming a detritus trap.
FWIW, Nathan
FWIW, Nathan
