Dsb's work, what makes them work best?

[barryhc]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6681011#post6681011 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by crypt-keeper
well I subscribed to this thread a while back but yet to read any of it.

Thats a shame, it is good reading. You could learn a lot.

I keep the calc at 450ppm, alk always needs buffering, ecery morning its down to 3meq/L, so I hit it with b-ionic, 1mL/gal. That brings it up to about 4. dosing kalk in the ato water. I;ve gottin rid of all my fish, still no3>10ppm.

400ppm is adequate for the Calcium, and might ease up on the alkalinity dosing requirement. Why are you trying to maintain more than 3meq/l anyway ?

I decided to suck the water out of the tank close to the sand, and fill at the same time. Now im getting somewere, its like the dsb is holding all the no3 and po3. I even replaced the sand with sugar sized arag. about 4 months ago. the tank had a fowl sell coming from it, the only way to get rid of it was slowly remove 50% of the sand that I could get to, so it looked BB in the front. then i when back to adding sand again later. the bad smell did go away when i removed the sand. I just bought a small calc reactor setup yesturday. this will be an attempt to keep my alk from swinging all the time. mag is 1290ppm.

You need to say more about your sand bed, grain size, composition and depth. What maintanence have you been doing. How old is your system ?

I did add one sand sifter, I forget what it was, has a long cylinder shaped shell, with orange on it, some type of snail???

It sounds dangerous.

As far as getting your Acro's growing, I think you need to get the nitrates down farther, like less than 1 or 2 ppm. If your sand bed is deep enough, and you leave it alone, then your nitrate should drop within a couple of mos., so long as feeding is sparse.

> Barry

 

[crypt-keeper]

thanks,
Well I been shooting for 450ppm calc, and about 4meq/L alk from reading this link about the two. http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/nov2002/chem.htm

Granted the values are a tid high, it says 425 ppm , and 3.5 meq/L is dead center.

On the DSB, the tank started with South down, about 3 to 4" deep. After months I noticed a foul reef odor coming from the tank, water changes could do anything, so running carbon(black diamond) did get rid of it. I wass reading about others having the same on here, finally I decided to start removing the sand, that got rid of the smell so no need for carbon anymore.

After a few months I got tired of the BB look, and added a bag of carib sea sugar sized arag. So it varries in debth from 4" to 2" in the front of the tank.

As far as maintanence, other than the cleanup crew, not doing much else to it. I wanted to put some sand sifters in it to keep the deadly gasses from building into pockets. I really cant get to much of it with a gravel cleaner, 29 gal are only 12" wide, and my aquascape goes from the front of the tank to the rear with great depth of field. Just enough roon in front for my clam. Some day he might grow to the point that I need to move him cuzz he will be against the glass. The system is 1.5years old now. In that time iv'e had great success, only lost a couple corals LPS that just didn't make it over a week or two. Typical now and then.

I only have a six line in the tank to eat the FW. He getts just several pellets of marine food every few days. I did have 4 fish in the tank which one was a hippo tang, with his special feeding requirments, I got rid of him after a year he doubled in size. I think tangs are bad for water quality.

so in closing the prob must be in the sand bed, maybe a build u from the fish in the past, or something else??? The only other notable observation is I see a lot of this grey snotty looking stuff on parts of the LR and was told its die off. This is always were light doesn't get to the rock.

 

[inwall75]

I did add one sand sifter, I forget what it was, has a long cylinder shaped shell, with orange on it, some type of snail???

There are a couple of cone snails fitting this description. All cone snails are dangerous to your other snails and sometimes small fish. There are one or two species that are dangerous to YOU. Luckily Conus textile is a species not common in the aquarium trade (because the collector died) but also is collected from different areas. Can you post a picture? If you can't, do a Google image search for Conus. http://images.google.com/images?sou...GGLD,GGLD:2005-17,GGLD:en&q=conus&sa=N&tab=wi

There are tons of different types and only one is dangerous to humans (textile) but if what you have looks like this, never touch it without thick gloves.

Interestingly, some of these toxins are being used on purpose by medical science in less lethal ways.

Several conotoxins, and their synthetic derivatives, are the subjects of current clinical trials on chronic pain control, posttraumatic neuroprotection, and the treatment of Parkinson disease and other neuromuscular disorders

http://www.emedicine.com/emerg/byname/conidae.htm

 

[barryhc]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6685603#post6685603 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by crypt-keeper
thanks,
Well I been shooting for 450ppm calc, and about 4meq/L alk from reading this link about the two. http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/nov2002/chem.htm

Granted the values are a tid high, it says 425 ppm and 3.5 meq/L is dead center.

I got 415ppm and 3.2 meq/l as nominal from that article. Try this one:

choose "Reef Keeping Water Parameters".

http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/subject/chemistry.htm

On the DSB, the tank started with South down, about 3 to 4" deep. After months I noticed a foul reef odor coming from the tank, water changes could do anything, so running carbon(black diamond) did get rid of it.
After a few months I got tired of the BB look, and added a bag of carib sea sugar sized arag. So it varries in depth from 4" to 2" in the front of the tank.

I'm not convinced yet on the "southdown", a good portion of that stuff is considered "silt", or "mud". The "sugarsize" size is better, or "oolitic", generally .1 to .2mm min. grains, up to 1.0 to 1.2mm at the top of the range. This has been very controversial, and the slightly larger "oolitic" is my opinion, but shared by many others who sell equipment, rock, sand and animals.

Talk to Inland Aquatics about sand, and then someone else, as well, to form an opinion for yourself.

As far as maintanence, other than the cleanup crew, not doing much else to it. I wanted to put some sand sifters in it to keep the deadly gasses from building into pockets.

I wouldn't worry about gas pockets that much, but put in some Nassarius snails, 12 maybe, they keep the top "turned" so you don't need to bother the "bed".

so in closing the prob must be in the sand bed, maybe a build u from the fish in the past,

I'm glad to see your suspicion here. More than likely. I would have asked you to consider that, so much better that you already are doing it yourself.

The only other notable observation is I see a lot of this grey snotty looking stuff on parts of the LR and was told its die off. This is always were light doesn't get to the rock.

You've got me on the "Snotty" stuff, I don't know, but I'm sure it isn't good and is likely a big part of the problem. Vacuum it out or elsewise remove it. Maybe some one who knows more on that will chime in. I hope so, I would like to know what it is.

Let's find out. > Barry

Curt, "Psychic" again, 8 seconds that time. :lol:

 

[inwall75]

Curt, "Psychic" again, 8 seconds that time. :lol:

Downright scary isn't it???

 

[engagg]

Having a hard time figurin' sand grain size, I believe somehwere in this thread there were a few brands of sand you guys used to show different sizes.

Sorry for being lazy and not sifting 30 pages.
Greg

 

[crypt-keeper]

yea that krazy snail looks like this, conic,

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/zonatus/Liste/Galerie_vendus/images/Conus Bullatus_jpg.jpg

as far as the stuff on the rock, I'll try for some macro's and post it here soon.

 

[inwall75]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6695400#post6695400 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by crypt-keeper
yea that krazy snail looks like this, conic,

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/zonatus/Liste/Galerie_vendus/images/Conus Bullatus_jpg.jpg

as far as the stuff on the rock, I'll try for some macro's and post it here soon.

Yeah, that puppy will stir for you but will also eat your other snails. As long as you know this, it's not a big deal and you can replace the other snails periodically. This guy is not poisonous to you....I looked it up. (I still can't remember the second species of cone snails that is dangerous. If you know, please post it).

 

[crypt-keeper]

here are some of the grey stuff, i had to play with the pics a little so u can see the stuff but colors are off. it reminds me of alien movies were they build cacoons and morf in them.

as far as the other thing, well now i know where bubba went! The lawnmower, i thought he jumped out of the tank and the cats ate him, cuzz i couldnt find any sign of him and started to moniter ammonia.

 

[inwall75]

Your "snotty stuff" appears to be a harmless sponge to me. I can see what appears to be siphon holes (I don't recall their real name). I wouldn't worry about it.

 

[Fraggle Rock2]

Remote DSB?

Remote DSB?

Anyone have any experience running a "remote DSB" or remote DSB/refugium?

Perhaps if the DSB does indeed become "exhausted" you could presumably replace it with a new one.

 

[inwall75]

Anthony Calfo has a good discussion about this in his old forum. It was called DSB in a bucket or something like that. BarryHC has a different twist in the advanced forum. The thread is called something like "The Plenum Wasting Option".

 

[barryhc]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6679883#post6679883 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Lothar
So what is the final word on silica or aragonite sand? One better than the other? Or a draw. It was touched on several times, but never a clear winner. I've always used aragonite but the talk about the silica not having the "bound" phosphate already in it interested me.

Lothar, here is the "recent" wisdom regarding Silica sand:

>> Advantages:
- - - Silica does not contain Phosphate to be "released", as you stated.

- - - Further, the Silica also does not dissolve as a result of lower pH. Therefore, it's size does not "reduce" or change over time. It is stable.

>> Disadvantages:
- - - Silica might "release" into the water column, and generate Diatom blooms. > Most experts dismiss this, since it doesn't disslove significantly to begin with, and others advocate dosing Silicates as necessary for certain corals growth.

- - - The big disadvantage is supposed to be Silicas "Sharp edges" and angular shape, which tend to damage some sand sifting or ingesting animals, and which compacts more easily, supposedly encouraging "clumping".

- - - No "buffering" of Calcium and Alkalinity.

>>>>>> Another disadvantage to almost any, "as obtained" substrate material, is "fines" and dust. Nearly any available substrate from any conventional source, includes a lot of "fines" that are very much finer than the advertised or specified size "range". Plenty of controversy about rinsing etc. before use.

My view is that fines and dust, contribute to clogging and clumping, and are not beneficial to the longevity of a sand bed.

I would call this "fineness" < .2mm = .008" = 2 "short hairs" in dia., or smaller. ( wild guess )

A call to a local "critter pack" producer, got me this response to the question of "fine sediment":

>> All of our "critters" of all sizes, do just fine in ANY SIZE OF SUBSTRATE or sand, or gravel, or Rubble, or bethnic zone, or cryptic zone, or live rock, or whatever. They do not require a Grain size. It is bacteria that might have more of a preference for grain size, and that may only be a function of time, how long it takes to populate.

So guess what ? Industrial glass beads are available in a composition similar to Silica sand , and in a wide range of sizes.

>>> Advantages:

- - - Nearly round for the inexpensive version. 65% sphericity. Much rounder than Araganite Oolitic. NO TIGHT PACKING, less, or no clumping.

- - - No sharp edges. VERY smooth. NO UNHAPPY SAND CRITTERS.

- - - Very inexpensive at $.30 per lb.

- - - 93.6 lb. per cubic foot. A bit heavier than Araganite, which is 70 lb. per cubic foot "DRY".

- - - Available in a wide range of grain sizes > .038mm "flour" to 2.0mm - .078" a little over 1/16". ( 5/64" )

- - - Larger sizes are available up to any size with 95% sphericity, but at considerably higher cost > $1.30 lb..

- - - NO DUST OR FINES AT ALL ! The beads are graded and rinsed to be not outside of the size range specification.

SO, for ME, this looks like the best material for a sand bed. Remember my own personal criteria:

1 > A sand bed must be conducive to the happiness and well being of the animals that "live in or require it".

2 > A sand bed must have excellent longevity.

3 > A sand bed must require "no to minimum" maintanence.

4 > NNR and Phosphate processing are worthwhile goals, if 1,2, and 3 are not violated.

Here you go:

http://www.ceroglass.com/prod_blasting.asp?ID=38

> Barry

 

[Paul B]

>> All of our "critters" of all sizes, do just fine in ANY SIZE OF SUBSTRATE or sand, or gravel, or Rubble, or bethnic zone, or cryptic zone, or live rock, or whatever. They do not require a Grain size. It is bacteria that might have more of a preference for grain size, and that may only be a function of time, how long it takes to populate.

Not so fast, I have a small problem with this one. Sand sifting gobies and goatfish like a smaller grain size. I have some small gobies not and they are having a hard time gulping my dolomite.
OK so it's not a really big problem, but I just wanted to post something.
Paul

 

[WaterKeeper]

Darn Paul,

I expected you to ask if the glass beads came in colors, at least.

 

[Lothar]

Thanks for the info Barry. Let us know how it goes if you use the beads.

 

[barryhc]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6733401#post6733401 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Paul B
Not so fast, I have a small problem with this one. Sand sifting gobies and goatfish like a smaller grain size. I have some small gobies not and they are having a hard time gulping my dolomite.
OK so it's not a really big problem, but I just wanted to post something.
Paul

The big controversy has had to do with sand bed "fauna"( pods, microstars burrowing snails, worms, etc. ), and it is those "critters" that the "supplier" said would not have a problem with grain size.

I have found .5 to 1.5mm to be an "optimum size" at the surface of the sand bed, for both sand sifting animals, such as gobies and stars etc. and with the balancing factor of being just large enough to highly resist "sand storm" potential.

Even the 1.5mm "top of the range", could be cut down to, say, 1mm, if it were thought to be neccesary for some animals. It is the .5mm "bottom of range", that I would like to avoid going below, in order to keep flow rates "up".

I would not expect to use the glass beads at the surface however, probably Araganite for a depth of 1 to 2". The glass beads would be for the smaller "Oolitic" layer ( .2 to 1.1mm ), at least an additional 3" of depth.

Most of this 3" depth would be either Hypoxic or Anoxic, with low pH, and the beads would not dissolve, reduce in size, or leach pH, and may be slower to allow any kind of "binding", which would be a plus for Plenum Wasting, at least.

MSDS sheets are on the way for colored beads for those "Classic" Keepers of Water, but the likelihood of acceptability is quite low for the colored beads. Samples of the Soda-lime Beads are coming in several pertinent grain sizes also.

Happy Reef keeping ! > Barry

 

[rulesmith]

ok 31 pages later, and I want a simple answer.

I am going with sand in my new 360 gal. tank. I should be adding water this weekend.

I know I want sand. So far what I have gotten out of the 31 pages is that I should go at least 4 inches deep. I should not siphon or stir my sand. I need lots of sand sifting critters. I should have a grain size of 1mm or so.

Am I missing anything. Any better advice. Anything to really avoid?

Thank you.

 

[barryhc]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6743897#post6743897 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by rulesmith
ok 31 pages later, and I want a simple answer.

I want a 30 foot twin screw that does 65 mph at 6 mpg myself ! OR, a DSB that lasts forever, and drops off weekly Phosphate pellets to sell to the local garden shop. I'm still working on the pellets ! :lol:

I am going with sand in my new 360 gal. tank. I should be adding water this weekend.

"Crunch Time". Good thing it isn't tonight !

I know I want sand. So far what I have gotten out of the 31 pages is that I should go at least 4 inches deep. I should not siphon or stir my sand. I need lots of sand sifting critters. I should have a grain size of 1mm or so.

Am I missing anything. Any better advice. Anything to really avoid?

H-m-m-m-m . . . . . . .

I hope you read a good portion of the 31 pages, in any case start here and read slowly, albeit you're running short of time.

http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=745968&perpage=25&pagenumber=29

This thread really is the best place I've seen to get current and valid info. on sand beds. This subject has been in need of "revamping" for a good while, and it certainly isn't done, still . . . . .

4" is minimal, 6 to 7" would be better.

Stirring and siphoning are not entirely taboo, keep it shallow and gentle.

1 snail per gallon, astrea, trochus, for glass and rock. About 1/3 Nassarius snails. Great for "turning" the sand.

Easy on the crabs, say one for each 4 gallons. Blue legged hermits.

.2 to 1.5mm on the grain size. If you don't find more than you want to know about substrate in the last 3 pages, then read it again.

I would highly reccomend a RUGF. Paul's developed over "many years". I could give you a "recipe" that should work well, and is still DSB if you give up and shut it off.

Now is the time, "CRUNCH TIME" !

These are my own personal reccomendations. I'm about to do the same on a 150 gal. tank. It is simple and easy to get started, not so easy to succeed in the long run. IF YOUR FISH LOOK HEALTHY, THEN FEED THEM LESS ! ! !

> Barry :beachbum: :thumbsup: :hammer: :wavehand:

 

[barryhc]

By the way, Randy Farley gave the OK, on the soda-lime composition of glass beads from the link above. No leaching of Phosphate, or other dangerous compounds from that version of substrate.

Ask around yourself, of Randy, or whoever, if you become interested.

> Barry