New Nitrate theory

I was thinking last night that my sand bed was young too. I will keep my eye on it see what happens. THis hobby is like every thing else, constantly changing. Thank you for the information. I too am not a DSB expert of a reef tank expert at that.
 
Thanks for the information. I just wish I had it 5-6 years ago and didn't have to figure it out myself.

Now I have some proof to my claim* that DSD are death beds, I tell people that all the time but no one ever believes me lol.

*for the last few years..only
 
Do not forget the process of ANAMMOX: it is the anaerobic ammonia oxidation. I think in a deep sand this process will occur.
 
No offense, but that article is nothing more than the writer reflecting. You will not be able to control which species of bacteria inhabit your system. Even identifying them is prohibitive except for the best equiped labs. Interesting theory... but as someone who has run DSBs for long periods of time (4+ years), I always had unmeasurable NO3 using LaMotte... Interesting thoughts, but bacteria biofilms and guilds are hardy a static process.
 
Stony_corals, I think the author said that this "may" be a cause of excess nitrates in a DSB.
Actually he states that this process is quite possable. I don't think this has to happen. But it apparently is happening in the tanks that are experiencing nitrate problems. What other cause could there be in a system that is supposed to be so efficient at controlling nitrates?
As I said, I don't have nitrates as measured by a professional lab and I don't run a DSB but there are many DSBs on here with nitrates and there should not be any.
It is just one article, you can just ignore it
 
Very interesting article, especially for myself as i was just debating whether to go deep or shallow on my new system. My question is, how does the dsb bucket idea work that people have raved about dropping nitrates to 0. Is it to a different extreme because of the great depth, or is the bucket just a quick fix until the sand apocalypse happens? I am not that knowledgable when it comes to sand beds so maybe this is a dumb question...
 
I think all DSBs will fail eventually but I am sure they work fine in the meantime.
I am not the person who should answer this because as you can tell, I don't like them
 
I'm using a dsb in a bucket and it's worked well for me. It's only been going 2 years so the jury is still out. I agree with Paul that it will eventually fail but the way I have it set up it's easy to take out of the system.
 
I think buckets are the way to go. If it croaks, take it out and put in another one. That way I like them
 
I am still reviewing the article as it is lengthy but it does not seem that new. I realize DSB systems require waterchanges or they will accumulate nitrates but doesn't a plenum or UG or BB system require them as well? I mean barring coil denitrator or ATS or some other system like that?
 
My system does not require water changes to lower nitrates. I change water four or five times a year just to replace trace elements. If I never changed water my nitrates would stay around five as they are now.
What is the reason for a DSB if they require more water changes?
 
Interesting , Paul.....this might explain why the people at esv used to say that their oolitic sand would denitrify just perfectly when only one inch deep...
I had a 120 back in the day with only one inch of oolitic sand...and it did denitrify-nitrates never exceeded .3ppm and I changed water in very small amts every month..(5gal)
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14580253#post14580253 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by eb8919
My question is, how does the dsb bucket idea work that people have raved about dropping nitrates to 0. Is it to a different extreme because of the great depth, or is the bucket just a quick fix until the sand apocalypse happens?

No DSB expert but just in reading this short(for the moment) thread it would seem to me that the reason RDSB's work quickly is because they would quickly develop the low oxygen areas, which appears to be the effective portion. over time, like the DSB's in a display tank, due to buildup of whatever kind, they would develop the no oxygen areas and begin to reintroduce the nitrates into the water collumn.

but like I said, just my $.02 after reading this short thread. I'm in the process of setting up my tank (been down for about 3years) and been researching this subject a lot.
 
I don't want to seem a smart arse but this is hardly ground breaking news is it? FWIW I use a medium lengh dsb with a stack of flow over the top and have had zero nitrates for a while now, and it looks pretty stable. The amount of flow in combination with the grain size is the driver on how deep you need to go to get from a (useful) low oxygen zone to an (unhelpful) zero oxygen zone.
I haven't seen numbers on how much ammonium makes it back up thro' the sand bed without being reoxidised. I guess it's presence reduces the need for the bacteria to use/remove nitrogenenous compounds from the water in the 'water' part of the display, and so reduces it's effectiveness as a secondary effect.
FWIW I would think an inch and a half is a bit shallow - if you plough the papers on the subject you'll find there's quite a bit of flow, movement of water and light solids thro' the sand bed at that sort of depth.
 
Just FWIW you are confusing the term anoxia, this means NO OXIGEN. What you mean is HYPOXIA this means low oxigen.

And I have been using DSB 10cm deep for at least 5 years and my nitrates stay near cero. So probably the harmful depth must be deeper...
 
Just FWIW you are using bad the term anoxia, this means NO OXIGEN. What you mean is HYPOXIA this means low oxigen.

Luigi, I think you are correct but I was just quoting from the article.

As for bucket DSBs working, I think any DSB will work for a few years. I don't feel 5 or even 10 years is long enough. Almost all of my fish live longer than that and I would not want to tear the thing apart. 10 years seems like a long time and it is if you are 20 years old, it is half of your life. It is only one sixth of my life so it doesen't seem very long. :D
 
For what it is worth, I have never been a fan of deep sandbeds and have zero nitrates (or at most 5), despite extremely heavy feeding and very messy eaters. I have a FOWLR with triggers, a large wrasse, etc. which is fairly heavily stocked and have no clean up crew. My sandbed is about 1 inch to 3/4 of inch deep in the display of arganite gravel. My refugium has no sand whatsoever and is loaded up with rock and topped off with macro chateo algae. I feed massive amounts of food several times per day (large meaty foods which often break apart into many little pieces which get sucked through the system) which mostly gets eaten, but it is not unusual for some significant amount of food to not get eaten when I feed a bit too heavy. I am amazed by the fact that unlike my prior system and without a clean up crew, I have no algae to speak of and near zero nitrates (usually undetectable or at most 5 when my feeding gets a bit out of control), despite my heavy bioload and feeding regime. My system is about 1 year old. My prior system had about a 3-4 inch sandbed and regularly suffered from excessive nitrate and algae problems. I do water changes at most every three months simply to replace trace elements and usually only change about 20% of the water. My skimmer is also not the greatest and is an air driven venturi type which is rated to handle up to (but not exceeding) my system size. By no means anything scientific, but just my personal experience.
 
Last edited:
Interesting thread, I'm running a bb 90g cube.

my nitrates were in the 100ppm mark a few weeks ago.

Plan A
- I started vodka and felt nothing changed, maybe I didn't dose it long enough, the only increase was my cyano.

Plan B
- Changed to wet skimming
- Adding sugar and more frequent water changes . previously my w/c 8% had been every two weeks and I have now increased them to every 3-4 days.

my nitrates are now between 10-25 ppm (salifert kit)

current parameters:
sg=1.026
magnessium=1200
temp=25.5
alk=7
calcium=410

I don't know if the sugar has anything to do with it, but I think the water changes have made a difference.

keep the posts coming guys&gals
 
Back
Top