Dyi dsb
- Thread starter stinger42
- Start date
uncleof6
Active member
You give no parameters such as water volume of the system, nor bio-load. 55 gallon barrels using this methodology (with a strict implementation criteria which does not include a 'fuge', e.g. rock, macro, critters) is used on systems in the 2000 gallon range....the barrel filled to the point, with oolitic aragonite sand, that only a few inches of water above the sand remains. It is staggering how quickly this method will reduce the nitrates in volumes this size.
Beyond that there really isn't an answer that would be based in any sort of quantitative or qualitative anlysis, to determine what is too deep, or not deep enough.
The 'model' for this is much more modest, and uses a 5 gallon bucket with 60lbs of oolitic sand, and that fills it up leaving only a few inches above the sand, over which water flows. This will serve around 120 gallons. So to do this right, (in 55 gallon drum) you are looking at ~ 600 lbs of sand...
A lot of folks believe that combining a sand bed with a 'fuge' is somehow a good idea. However, adding rock, macro, and the associated life that comes with it, changes the needed methodology for a dsb, from a simple, maintanence free, unlit pile of sand, to the need for a method that can deal with the inevitable particulate matter issues that will turn the dsb into a mess: in need of care and feeding every bit as intensive as it would be in a DT. Whereas a 'bucket dsb,' as it is refered to, will eliminate entirely the need or desire, even in the most remote sense, for a 'fuge,' unless you are wanting to keep seahorses or similar, and you would not be doing that in a 55 gallon drum, or at least I hope not.
So, I would have to say that if you don't have a 2000 gallon system, then a 55 gallon drum is a huge waste, and at the other end of the scale, a little fuge (whatever that means) and sand bed in a sump is next to useless.
Beyond that there really isn't an answer that would be based in any sort of quantitative or qualitative anlysis, to determine what is too deep, or not deep enough.
The 'model' for this is much more modest, and uses a 5 gallon bucket with 60lbs of oolitic sand, and that fills it up leaving only a few inches above the sand, over which water flows. This will serve around 120 gallons. So to do this right, (in 55 gallon drum) you are looking at ~ 600 lbs of sand...
A lot of folks believe that combining a sand bed with a 'fuge' is somehow a good idea. However, adding rock, macro, and the associated life that comes with it, changes the needed methodology for a dsb, from a simple, maintanence free, unlit pile of sand, to the need for a method that can deal with the inevitable particulate matter issues that will turn the dsb into a mess: in need of care and feeding every bit as intensive as it would be in a DT. Whereas a 'bucket dsb,' as it is refered to, will eliminate entirely the need or desire, even in the most remote sense, for a 'fuge,' unless you are wanting to keep seahorses or similar, and you would not be doing that in a 55 gallon drum, or at least I hope not.
So, I would have to say that if you don't have a 2000 gallon system, then a 55 gallon drum is a huge waste, and at the other end of the scale, a little fuge (whatever that means) and sand bed in a sump is next to useless.
The tank is 450 gallons. 9ftx4ftx1.5ft. My current fuge is 220 gallons. The barrel will be a DSB and mangroves. Lots of waste is going to be produced. I am getting stingrays.
Thanks for the information. Is deeper always better? Is there a certain point where it does matter if you add more?
Thanks for the information. Is deeper always better? Is there a certain point where it does matter if you add more?
Yodeling
Premium Member
I believe the "agreed upon" standard is that anything over 20 inches of sand is a waste regardless of what depth or shape container you use. You also only want a couple inches of water flowing across the top of the sand. I agree that 55g barrel might be overkill. For your size system, maybe a 20 long would do the trick.
uncleof6
Active member
20 gallon bucket, or drum, and around 200lbs of sand...strong enough flow to prevent paticulate matter from falling out...300gph, 400gph maybe...you are chasing phantom internet myths to do anything else.
Like I said before, there is no empirical evidence to support any claims that this depth or that depth is more prefered or not...
If you are going to use a dsb DO NOT put mangroves or any other living thing in it. You will simply negate any positive benefits of the sand, there are well defined methods that are used here, and they do not include mangroves or macro for that matter.
Again, if you want to do the fuge concept, you need to head in a different direction, but the bucket DSB will do everything that needs to be done without wasting energy and resources.
Like I said before, there is no empirical evidence to support any claims that this depth or that depth is more prefered or not...
If you are going to use a dsb DO NOT put mangroves or any other living thing in it. You will simply negate any positive benefits of the sand, there are well defined methods that are used here, and they do not include mangroves or macro for that matter.
Again, if you want to do the fuge concept, you need to head in a different direction, but the bucket DSB will do everything that needs to be done without wasting energy and resources.
uncleof6
Active member
I have not agreed upon that, neither have I agreed upon any arbitrary figure...there is no information available on which to base such standards or practices, and no way to defend them, so there cannot be an 'agreed upon standard,' that states anything over 20" deep... Just sayin...
Some how or another though, we seem to agree on a 'gallon' volume; I am selling a method, not relying on arbitrary standards...I have no idea how tall a 20 gallon bucket is, (off the top of my head,) I just happen to know about how much sand will fit in it, using a time proven method that works fine for a 5 gallon bucket, and a 55 gallon drum, both of which have a 'greater' depth than surface area. At the same time, I have critter based dsbs (in tank) ranging from 6 to 9 inches, as well as plenum systems, in which water changes are not a regular occurance, unless I spring a leak, that have a 'greater' surface area than depth.
What is probably more important is not getting caught up in the internet fad stuff, that just doesn't show anything significant: is 90% hype, and 10% science.
