Dsb's work, what makes them work best?

Re: Re: Re: Phosphate Fans!

Re: Re: Re: Phosphate Fans!

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6481788#post6481788 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by barryhc
The commonly stated figure is < .03 for sure, and preferably less than .015, and that is for the values we can test for with common test kits.

> barryhc :)
These numbers are fron RANDY'S information. check out the values.


aubee91, Read the information more carefully. Compare the numbers you just gave me ( .19ppm ) to the numbers that I provided. :idea:

Are you concerned about phosphates? I am. :p

> barryhc :D :)
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Phosphate Fans!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Phosphate Fans!

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6482209#post6482209 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by barryhc
These numbers are fron RANDY'S information. check out the values.


aubee91, Read the information more carefully. Compare the numbers you just gave me ( .19ppm ) to the numbers that I provided. :idea:

Are you concerned about phosphates? I am. :p

> barryhc :D :)

Yes, I am. :)

I saw those numbers in Randy's article. But what was of more interest to me was his comment about how "inhibition of calcification takes place at concentrations frequently attained in reef tanks, and may begin at levels below those detectable by hobby test kits." But .19ppm is detectable by hobby test kits.

Phosphate taken up from the water column by macroalgae or stony corals...if it is usable by them, is it always in a form that can be detected by hobby test kits? I'm wondering if we can use type and growth rates of particular macroalgae to determine whether we have a phosphate problem (i.e. phosphate levels that can harm our stony corals) that our test kits can't detect. Obviously growth of different types of nuisance algae can be indicative of problem levels of phosphate regardless of whether it is detectable by a hobby test kit, right?
 
A slightly more contextual quotation from the statement that I made. :D

Originally posted by barryhc
It is now below this "low oxygen" zone, that other processes are carried out by OBLIGATE Anaerobic bacteria, and it is here where Nitrates and other nutrients and compounds are processed into nitrogen gas supposedly, which is somewhat controversial for some reason, and hydrogen sulfide ( again contrversial ), Phosphates "bind and leach", heavy metals "sink", and again, guess what, all controversial.

I believe that all these processes occur in a deep sand bed, to one degree or another, and likely, different in every tank. It is the DIFFERENT in every tank part that has gotten us into this discussion, I'm sure, along with many other things.


<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6479600#post6479600 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Sindjin
I disagree. PO4 will "bond" to Calcium Carbonates such as Aragonite. There have been many studies on this.

What do you disagree with?

The "controversy" is that you must understand that this "bonding" is pH dependant.

Among other things. I agree whole heartedly!!!


Most of the bonding takes place at a pH of 8.4. If the pH is significantly lower, it would reverse this bond, leaching the PO4 back into the water.

Well, kinda-sorta. Actually Phosphate becomes less able to precipitate with calcium at levels both above AND below the 8.3 to 8.4 range of pH. And you are right that it is the lower pH values that occur at some depth in a sand bed, and inside of live rock to some degree, that causes Calcium, Carbonate, and phosphate, along with some heavy metals, to be released from the substrate.

Now consider this, how did this Phosphate get there in the first place? Well some of it is in the Araganite to begin with, and this is why I'm not quite so keen on it for a substrate choice, especialy in "fine mud" grain sizes, but I digress.

And of course we are going to keep the poop out of the bed with high flow, good grain size, and skimming, and critters, but phosphate can still get into the bed the same way ammonia does.

If Phosphate is released from the mineral state with Calcium, then it is now in the pore water. It does not spew out of the surface of the bed like a fire hose. The release of various compounds including Phosphate certainly does occur, at least while "buffering" is occuring, and quite possibly while stirring or other maintanence is going on.

pH levels of ~ 6.5 to 7.5 have been identified as particularly "good" levels for "buffering" to occur, and the phosphate is likely to "release" here just as well. And the finer the particle size, the faster the releasing, as well as clumping or crystilization if the pH changes substantially, quickly, and remains so for an extended length of time.

Again, I wonder about Araganite as the best choice for substrate based on this. Ditto for the "mud" grade particles.

Now the Calcium and the Carbonate are going to get back into the water column by some process, and phosphate might do this as well, BUT there aren't any animals in the substrate to eat the Calcium and Carbonate, whereas it is a different case for the phosphate now isn't it?

The phosphate will run into all this biological activity that loves to use it as a food source, and it doesn't only go up either, now does it?

Well, is that enough for now? Maybe some one would like to chime in, and finish the story!!!

Thanks all !! > barryhc :)
 
It is absolutely Hilarious when our replies "pass" in the mail. :lol: :lol:

Give me a chance to reply to your last post, please. :) :) :)

> barryhc :p
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Phosphate Fans!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Phosphate Fans!

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6482503#post6482503 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by aubee91
Phosphate taken up from the water column by macroalgae or stony corals...if it is usable by them, is it always in a form that can be detected by hobby test kits?

No. It certainly is not. we need better test kits.
I'm wondering if we can use type and growth rates of particular macroalgae to determine whether we have a phosphate problem (i.e. phosphate levels that can harm our stony corals) that our test kits can't detect.

I don't know, but I like the idea.

Obviously growth of different types of nuisance algae can be indicative of problem levels of phosphate regardless of whether it is detectable by a hobby test kit, right?

Well this is partially true, assuming that flow, and particle size and detrivores, and herbivores etc. can't handle it.

The problem is, that as I explained in my little "cure in the tank" experiment, good husbandry with "critters" can eliminate all algae in your tank, even while Phosphates are way too high.

That is the way it worked in my tank, and it is still that way today.

I think that growth rates would be "key" here, and part of our problem is that the "experts can't afford" to do the studies. Also no herbivores allowed, to say the least. It is really up to us I'm afraid.

Thanks > barryhc :)
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6477329#post6477329 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by inwall75
Most of it stays there for quite some time. It's recycled because bacteria are cannibals. Eventually, other things happen but lets not go there yet.

Hey Curt, when are we "gonna go there"? Are we "there" yet??

Huh? Huh? Huh? Are we there yet? ? ? . . . Fine, I'll take a nap. :lol: :lol: :lol:

> barryhc :)
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6480367#post6480367 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by bertoni

So for a DSB, I think 0.1mm is a good size. 0.2mm is far too coarse. With too coarse a substrate, the sandbed won't support a number of species of infauna considered critical. A bad bet, would be my bottom line.

Ive noticed more often than not, people saying they mix different size grains (finer on the bottom and more coarse up top maybe, my head hurts so I don't recall most of the logic behind it.) What does the consensus think about this?

My other question deals with infauna. Somebody correct me if im wrong... how much we feed the tanks pretty much dictates how large or small the infauna population would be? i.e. If I had a small fish load and I feed them very very light multiple times a day. what would sustain the life in the sand over a period of time? I know this is where "recharge packs" come in, but there has to be more to it. I couldn't imagine feeding the tank just to keep infauna alive since the whole idea to to export nutrients not import them.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6483518#post6483518 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by alten78
Ive noticed more often than not, people saying they mix different size grains (finer on the bottom and more coarse up top maybe, my head hurts so I don't recall most of the logic behind it.) What does the consensus think about this?

I'm not the "consensus" but I'll do what I can. :D

Well, to some degree, this occurs by stirring or elsewise aggravating the gravel. The reason to do this as a "feature", is that the larger grains on top can resist sand storms effectively, so that high flow can be utilized to keep poop up in the water column, and into the skimmer. The finer grains below, offer much greater surface area for the bacteria to "munch" in.

It is a fine line here however. Grains between .5 to 2mm will keep the poop out, but 2mm is much larger than some sand animals prefer, so a top "size of grain" range is better to end at 1.5mm for many of the sand bed animals that we want to "make happy".

Then the finer grains below, which I think are ok with a minimum of .1 to .2mm, and up to about 1mm. Bertoni is not yet convinced here, but well see.

My other question deals with infauna. Somebody correct me if im wrong... how much we feed the tanks pretty much dictates how large or small the infauna population would be?

It is a combination of feeding, and predation actually.

i.e. If I had a small fish load and I feed them very very light multiple times a day. what would sustain the life in the sand over a period of time?

In most cases, your very light feeding of the fish should be adequate.

I know this is where "recharge packs" come in, but there has to be more to it. I couldn't imagine feeding the tank just to keep infauna alive since the whole idea to to export nutrients not import them.

Well, not really. "recharge packs" is a marketing technique to sell you whatever you can be convinced to buy. Some rubble at the surface can help to reduce predation, but can also effectively capture food and fish poop, so again this a fine line.

The best thing here is to keep your "food factory" in a refugium, and add a "rubble zone" in the tank as well if you like, to promote some "food habitat" within the display. This "rubble zone" will collect some "nutrients" ( food and poop ), but the little animals will be there to eat it, and then give your fish some "yummy dinner".

Also, be careful about unnecessary predation at the bed surface. Crabs keep the substrate very clean, but they also steal all your fishes "dinner".

Thanks for posting. > barryhc :) :D
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6483508#post6483508 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by barryhc
Hey Curt, when are we "gonna go there"? Are we "there" yet??

Huh? Huh? Huh? Are we there yet? ? ? . . . Fine, I'll take a nap. :lol: :lol: :lol:

> barryhc :)

I'm actually curious to hear where other people think the nutrients go. I'm out for a bit until that question is answered.
 
I'm actually curious to hear where other people think the nutrients go. I'm out for a bit until that question is answered.

I have come to the realization that "nutrients" is a bit broad of a term. In a DSB, dentrification can and will take place. It is VERY possible and probable (husbandry being the factor of course) that Nitrates will be zero in a DSB. The nutrient in question is PO4.

So far we have learned that PO4 bonds to things dependant on other things....but never really gets "dephosphatized". :) So when detritus is settling in a sand bed for years and years...what happens to all the PO4? If/when released it will be utilized by plant life, exported by the skimmer and/or water changes, etc.

I run a BB because I just want to export all the waiste and Im too lazy to maintain a sandbed ontop of trying to establish a coral colony.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6486098#post6486098 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Sindjin
So far we have learned that PO4 bonds to things dependant on other things....but never really gets "dephosphatized". :) So when detritus is settling in a sand bed for years and years...what happens to all the PO4? If/when released it will be utilized by plant life, exported by the skimmer and/or water changes, etc.

Just like charging up a battery. Even if you stop feeding your tank, the algae just keeps going... and going... and going... and going.... :p
 
Someone explain that. Why wouldn't the bed leach the small amounts of po4 as they were produced instead of holding them. Does it always stay bound until there is enough to produce a mass belch of po4. If its being released in small amounts then lots of flow to move it to the skimmer and out would still work right.
 
Why wouldn't the bed leach the small amounts of po4 as they were produced instead of holding them. Does it always stay bound until there is enough to produce a mass belch of po4. If its being released in small amounts then lots of flow to move it to the skimmer and out would still work right.

I dont think their is a definitive reason. I think some will get leaked but most will be driven deeper into the bed and stored by bacteria. Some will bond to calcerous subtrates or Live Rock, and a lot of the PO4 "cycle" is dependant upon pH and alk. So...focusing on exportaion is key.

I am also a firm believer that when setting up a NEW DSB it is imperative to almost setup a STERILE Reef and add life slowly...controlling the introduction of PO4 every step of the way.

BTW... I really like PaulB's subtrate bed and his reverse UG Filter.
 
So if the bonding point for po4 is 8.4 then would it not be feasable to try to control the PH below that point, does the ph deep in the sand bed register lower or higher than the upper levels. Any data.
 
Beats me. Trying to pinpoint this sort of activity is impossible, IMO because every tank is different. IMO, what needs to be focused on is exportation and preventing the importation....hence why I think Rock Cooking is SOOOO important. My tank is 3 months old and Im still siphoning/exporting detritus being shed from the rock.
(I didn't cook mine, unfortuantely)

Im sure there will be some acidic build-up in the substrate where pH levels would be lower than tank-average....but I think that is impossible to control.
 
I just don't get that, I have had some of my rock for over a year and not had much crud come off it. I hit it with the turkey baster every week and it does'nt get much.
 
Thats good. Try putting the TBaster in a hole or two in the rock and pumping water thru it.

BUT...my tank is new, and I used uncured Rock and cured it in tank with A LOT of work! Thats why Im still seeing stuff. Plus I have a BB with 6000gph of flow so I see it accumulate in one or two spots in the tank and wet skim like crazy.
 
Uncured would shed alot I guess. I never cured any. I set mine up with mixture of 15-20% preminum LR and the rest dead dry base rock. Probably about 800gph and 2" SB. then I found out I needed more flow and more sand. So I waited about a month and added another 2" of sand. Nothing special just some good old Walmart play sand. Yep Silica! :) nice small to med size. I'm not good with all the .0001mm thing..lol.. So I will just say small is sugar size. And I went pretty slow on bioload. Didn't add alot at once.

Maybe I just got lucky I guess. I can explain almost all my algae outbreaks. I had one cyano outbreak for a couple of weeks after adding the new sand. But it went away after a coupe of weeks by just directing some flow on the areas and skimming wet.
I get a bubble here or there form time to time and a patch of hair but it grows really slow and either I pull it or something eats it. I found a dead snail shortly after a cyano outbreak a few weeks ago. Pulled the snail out and it went away.

I just got lucky I guess.

In the left corner you can see the cyano the dead snail caused.
S4023672.jpg


A mid tank shot,
S4023629.jpg


here is the corner of the tank with the cyano a couple of days after the snail was removed.
S4023308.jpg


Husbandry is SOOO important on all tanks. :)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top