Dsb's work, what makes them work best?
- Thread starter barryhc
- Start date
And am I to take it that the 4" depth of oolitic sand starting at .1mm is going to be ineffectual because of even just 1/4" of .5 to 1.5mm "sand" that is on top of it?
Have you visited the "Rubble bottom thread, where the big benefit of the 1" to 6" rubble is so successful because of the infauna that "abound" in such "huge" substrate ?
> barryhc
Maybe. If I were, say, a juvenile cirratulid worm, with perhaps 0.5 or 1mm tentacles, I might be unhappy with 1.5mm of coarse sand on type of my preferred substrate. Again, in human terms, that 1.5mm might be the equivalent of a 3-4 story building.
Have you visited the "Rubble bottom thread, where the big benefit of the 1" to 6" rubble is so successful because of the infauna that "abound" in such "huge" substrate ?
> barryhc
I've run tanks with such rubble area. I still have a corner of one tank set up that way. They are very useful for growing mysid shrimp, for example. I just don't know whether they support denitrification and other nutrient processing in the underlying sand. So in that sense, they are orthogonal to a DSB.
Lots of things. There are many cycles going on. Sigh.
Well, denitrification is one that most often gets discussed. There are organisms that can survive in oxic areas and perform denitrification, but I am guessing that in a DSB, it's done mostly in the anoxic areas deeper in the DSB.
There are also mineralization and demineralization cycles.
Those are some of the chemical processes. Some animals will be moving through those layers from time to time, consuming nutrients and providing water circulation.
I guess I will have to break out the references again, most likely this weekend. I already need to get the data on calcium carbonate consumption.
Well, at least you stated that you don't know, and if I did, I would have been screaming it at the top of my lungs by now( which doesn't amount to much ). :lol: :lol:
Denitrification IS NOT MY FIRST POINT OF BUSINESS anyway, in case anyone missed that point. I just want to have the sand for the animals that need or like it, and then do the best I can with it otherwise.
So now we're there heh, " goody, goody, goody" ! ! !
> barryhc
Well, I guess then it comes down to what you want from the sandbed. In the case of a filter, or for growing most of the sandbed infauna, I am very skeptical about covering the sand with coarser rubble. I'm not convinced that's very common in nature, although larger particles do get moved to the surface by various natural processes.
So we would need you to be very specific about the animals you're trying to keep, to say much more.
So we would need you to be very specific about the animals you're trying to keep, to say much more.
Well, I'm more concerned with my tank than "nature", to start with.
I have been asking you specificly, for at least 10 pages, what fauna are not going to be supported in a sand bed with any amount of .5 to 1.5mm "sand-fine-gravel" at the surface ( including specificly as little as 1/4" depth of such ), and 4" of oolitic sand ( .1 to 1.2mm ) below that.
Now tell me, what "most of the sand bed infauna" is, that it is not going to survive in your ( or Shimek's ) "killing zone", as a result.
Please ! ! !
And please try to remember, that we are trying to improve the sand bed here, not just define what used to be considered an approximation of "natural conditions".
Now to really get to the nitty gritty Jonathan, are you going ti try to sat that a 1/4" or other depth of left over snail and crab shells, and other misc. small "rubble", is going to "kill" the sand bed?
I think you should start reviewing Shimek, and whatever else you can to try to start supporting this "theory".
> barryhc
joefish
Premium Member
So after all this I still have some simple questions ?
What size grains do we use for sand ?
and what type ?
Is there more then one right answer ?
Are refugiums a necessity ? or can we run one without it ?
How does ozone effect the bed ? is it good ?
How does UV effect the bed ? is it good ?
Doe we stir and vacuum or not ?
What exact critters are needed ?
How do you know what over feeding is ?
How do you know when your overdoing the Bio-load before it's to late ?
So far all I got is the same old song and dance of theorys.
What I do know now is ,
the new DSB approach now sound like the new BB approach . High flow and get it out before it rots , So it acts more like Calfos bucket Idea . Which I still don't buy into just yet .
Do I need a PHD to run one , or can we break this down to simple terms for people like me .
If I missed any Questions all add to them later .
What size grains do we use for sand ?
and what type ?
Is there more then one right answer ?
Are refugiums a necessity ? or can we run one without it ?
How does ozone effect the bed ? is it good ?
How does UV effect the bed ? is it good ?
Doe we stir and vacuum or not ?
What exact critters are needed ?
How do you know what over feeding is ?
How do you know when your overdoing the Bio-load before it's to late ?
So far all I got is the same old song and dance of theorys.
What I do know now is ,
the new DSB approach now sound like the new BB approach . High flow and get it out before it rots , So it acts more like Calfos bucket Idea . Which I still don't buy into just yet .
Do I need a PHD to run one , or can we break this down to simple terms for people like me .
If I missed any Questions all add to them later .
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6494563#post6494563 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by barryhc
Now tell me, what "most of the sand bed infauna" is, that it is not going to survive in your ( or Shimek's ) "killing zone", as a result.
> barryhc
I wouldn't count on much of anything to survive in the normal numbers. The best analogy might be a meadow with a fine soil substrate, a foot deep or so. The size of a lot of the sandbed infauna is in the sub-millimeter size. For a meadow, the size might be a few inches or more. If the meadow gets covered with rocks 3-4 inches in size, only a small subset of what was growing there is going to be around when the new ecosystem hits a relatively stable point. Even after the pores in the rocks fill with finer material, I think the fauna and flora would be substantially changed.
I think that's a reasonable rough analogy of the environmental change.
I posted the size distribution that I believe would work. The chemical composition doesn't matter as long as it's reasonably stable in saltwater; silica and calcium carbonate are fine.
Maybe and maybe. I don't know of any measurements that will quantify answers to those questions for any style of tank.
UV would likely be more deleterious than ozone because it would kill anything in the water column. Ozone is more selective, and might be tolerated.
No stirring, vacuuming only in cases of microbial blooms, if then, and you'll need a selection of the "detritivore kits", etc. There's no species list.
Cyanobacteria is a good warning sign.
That's not too late, IME. Some phosphate tests on the sand might be good for the truly paranoid.What size grains do we use for sand ?
>> We're not sure about this yet.
And what type ?
>> Ditto
Is there more then one right answer ?
>> Yes.
Are refugiums a necessity ? or can we run one without it ?
>> No, and yes.
How does ozone effect the bed ? is it good ?
>> You've got me om that one, but I suspect "zilch".
How does UV effect the bed ? is it good ?
>> I like that one, but I think minimally at best.
Do we stir and vacuum or not ?
>> I say no, for my type of set-up, and I think it is generally bad for a true DSB, not to be confused with SSB where stir and vacuum are fine.
What exact critters are needed ?
>> Boy are you good at these questions, that is what I want to know too ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
How do you know what over feeding is ?
>> keep reading this thread
How do you know when your overdoing the Bio-load before it's to late ?
>> When you see pig farmers bibs while looking in the mirror.
So far all I got is the same old song and dance of theorys.
>> That is because we only just started the "rest of the story", and else wise because you are "skimming over" too much of the good stuff. You are supposed to be skimming the "bad stuff".
Do I need a PHD to run one , or can we break this down to simple terms for people like me.
>> Those phD's have been looking less convincing lately.
> barryhc
Okay, that was a lousy answer.
No, a refugium is not necessary for some bioload limit. At some bioloads or feeding loads, that'll break down, as will any filtration system. There's no quantifications of any of this, as far as I know, and I don't see how to measure it usefully, for that matter.
I think that the most "reasonable" part of it is that it is so "rough".
I also think that you think inside of a "box", and that box was created by Shimek.
This is not any kind of kind of stab, or discredit toward you or Shimek either one, but this is an investigation in how to improve on operating sand beds, and quoting Shimek isn't going to get it done.
We've been there, "done that", and "moved on".
> barryhc
Well, okay, so I'm inside a box, but my line of argument is:
1) Animals do best in an environment like their natural one.
2) These sandbed animals don't come from environments like the one you propose, ipso facto, they're not going to do as well.
The argument doesn't come down to Dr Shimek, but rather the natural environment for the animals. The change you're talking about is huge, in their terms.
1) Animals do best in an environment like their natural one.
2) These sandbed animals don't come from environments like the one you propose, ipso facto, they're not going to do as well.
The argument doesn't come down to Dr Shimek, but rather the natural environment for the animals. The change you're talking about is huge, in their terms.
I think that the "change" that I talk about is not the least bit huge, and is in fact as "minimal" as possible, in order to accomodate the largest number of animals that we can, while maintaining as much of the natural reef as possible.
High flow, is exceedingly natural in the "wild conditions" that you claim to be trying to promote, and even with the very high flows that are sometimes achieved in captive reef tanks, the flow is abysmally insufficient to the order of at least one magnitude.
You are caught in an impossible situation as far as replicating the natural reef, and the approximation that is used can vary considerably.
There is no "magic bullet", to captive reef keeping, and heaven forbid, you are acting like there is, and so is/was Shimek, as well as others.
The "magic bullet syndrome" needs to come to an end, along with "wunder mud", and "miracle whatever".
> barryhc
