New Nitrate theory
- Thread starter Paul B
- Start date
jenglish
Marquis de Carabas
I think 4-6 inches is what most have luck with and I stick more to the 4 inch side. Just because something works well doesn't always mean more will be better (Jim Beam taught me this lesson). If your nitrates are climbing quickly, you need to look at lowering bioload, decreasing nutrient import or increasing nutrient export. You could get a bigger skimmer, increase your lighting in your fuge and harvest more increase waterchange schedule, reduce feeding or even get rid of a few fish. A bit more flow can help with the algae forming but ultimately you need to deal with the nutrient issue 
Aquarist007
New member
I doubt very much the debate over dsb has been going on for a long time now and probably will continue for a long time into the future.
One excellent point above however the should not be lost is that it is not a question of depth of a dsb rather it is a question of curbing the importing of nitrates to begin with.
herring_fish
Crazy Designer
Detritus: What is it ..really.
Detritus: What is it ..really.
I used the typical Jaubert/Goemans plenum tank bottom for about 7 year in the 90’s. As a side note, I never needed snails. I could look into this area and see it accumulating over time but when I tore the tank down because I was relocating, I found about ¼ inch layer of detritus on the bottom.
I have started my new tank and have heavily feed for about 2 months. Now, I have lots of snails that defecate a tremendous amount of material. Being that I am in the setup stage, I have a mostly bare bottom in parts of the tank, temporarily. I find that I have a thinner layer of this stuff in all of the areas of low water flow and it is blown up when ever the stream of water from the pump is directed onto the rock.
This fresh detritus looks just the same as the 7 year old gray powder that was not consumed by anything in my old tank. I had read Dr. Adey’s book and tried to get bottom feeding critters to eat fresh detritus in my old tank. Admittedly, the plenum was supposed to have been an anaerobic zone so that may have limited the range of bacteria that might have been able to consume it.
Never the less, the detritus had passed through the critters, the aerobic zone and finally into the anaerobic zone. Therefore I thought that what remained had been reduced to an almost inert substance.
Seeing this fresh detritus and how it looks just like the old, I wonder what a layer of several inches of this stuff could do to a tank’s water quality. I also wonder what animals or bacteria could eat it if it was isolated in one place and freely accessible them.
Detritus: What is it ..really.
I used the typical Jaubert/Goemans plenum tank bottom for about 7 year in the 90’s. As a side note, I never needed snails. I could look into this area and see it accumulating over time but when I tore the tank down because I was relocating, I found about ¼ inch layer of detritus on the bottom.
I have started my new tank and have heavily feed for about 2 months. Now, I have lots of snails that defecate a tremendous amount of material. Being that I am in the setup stage, I have a mostly bare bottom in parts of the tank, temporarily. I find that I have a thinner layer of this stuff in all of the areas of low water flow and it is blown up when ever the stream of water from the pump is directed onto the rock.
This fresh detritus looks just the same as the 7 year old gray powder that was not consumed by anything in my old tank. I had read Dr. Adey’s book and tried to get bottom feeding critters to eat fresh detritus in my old tank. Admittedly, the plenum was supposed to have been an anaerobic zone so that may have limited the range of bacteria that might have been able to consume it.
Never the less, the detritus had passed through the critters, the aerobic zone and finally into the anaerobic zone. Therefore I thought that what remained had been reduced to an almost inert substance.
Seeing this fresh detritus and how it looks just like the old, I wonder what a layer of several inches of this stuff could do to a tank’s water quality. I also wonder what animals or bacteria could eat it if it was isolated in one place and freely accessible them.
elegance coral
They call me EC
Re: Detritus: What is it ..really.
Re: Detritus: What is it ..really.
The "fresh" detritus looks just like the "old" because they are one in the same. The detritus in the old tank wasn't 7 years old. The system will continually produce detritus. It is also continually being broken down and dissolved away.
I doubt much of anything could survive in a system that had several inches of detritus on the bottom. Except maybe algae.
Decomposing detritus is constantly releasing substances like nitrate and phosphate into the water. It doesn't take much detritus to reek havoc with water quality.
Re: Detritus: What is it ..really.
The "fresh" detritus looks just like the "old" because they are one in the same. The detritus in the old tank wasn't 7 years old. The system will continually produce detritus. It is also continually being broken down and dissolved away.
I doubt much of anything could survive in a system that had several inches of detritus on the bottom. Except maybe algae.
Decomposing detritus is constantly releasing substances like nitrate and phosphate into the water. It doesn't take much detritus to reek havoc with water quality.
a.k.a.Lunchbox
New member
Very interesting read but after reading this thread I'm still on the fence when it comes to DSB's
herring_fish
Crazy Designer
All New?
All New?
I had an Algal Turf Scrubber so I never worried about nitrates or phosphates but when I turned it off for 3 months in the 6th year (and cut out the feeding) the water quality stayed pretty good.
So the detritus was being processed after all? Then a ¼ inch max is expectable?
All New?
I had an Algal Turf Scrubber so I never worried about nitrates or phosphates but when I turned it off for 3 months in the 6th year (and cut out the feeding) the water quality stayed pretty good.
So the detritus was being processed after all? Then a ¼ inch max is expectable?
herring_fish
Crazy Designer
.
herring_fish
Crazy Designer
Export Without Filtration
Export Without Filtration
I didn’t think that a UDSB would be a big mechanical filter but when I turned it on, I founded that, the way that I had set mine up, it was. This wouldn’t be important if I used a skimmer or didn’t feed so much. Optimally, I would like it if I could get powdered and live food to stay suspended in the water column until it is consumed by the corals or it rots. Then the algal scrubber would take up the nutrients.
I am tearing the UDSB down but I’m keeping the plenum and reducing the bed to 4 inches of coral gravel. Then I will fill the rest of the 55 gallon refugium with coral rubble. I have turned off the reverse flow pump but I am leaving the plumbing in place. My thought here is that I can periodically blow the detritus out of the bottom of the tank, there by exporting it without filtering it out too early.
Export Without Filtration
I didn’t think that a UDSB would be a big mechanical filter but when I turned it on, I founded that, the way that I had set mine up, it was. This wouldn’t be important if I used a skimmer or didn’t feed so much. Optimally, I would like it if I could get powdered and live food to stay suspended in the water column until it is consumed by the corals or it rots. Then the algal scrubber would take up the nutrients.
I am tearing the UDSB down but I’m keeping the plenum and reducing the bed to 4 inches of coral gravel. Then I will fill the rest of the 55 gallon refugium with coral rubble. I have turned off the reverse flow pump but I am leaving the plumbing in place. My thought here is that I can periodically blow the detritus out of the bottom of the tank, there by exporting it without filtering it out too early.
This has been interesting to say the least.
I ,too tried the plenum based on the Jaubert theory back in the 90's also, noting the detritus accumulation under the bottom plate.However I also noticed when I broke it down the temperature in the substrate was considerably warmer than the tank water. This has really got me wondering about the Hovanec article.
In his experiment the temperature was uncontrolled and ran without heaters. It would make sense that the finesand would have a certain (R) value, maitaining a more stable temperature in the substrate. From what I have read metalbolic rates in thge substrate are sensitive to temperature. It would make sense a larger grain size would have a lesser (R) value , and fluncuate temperature more in the substrate through circulation within the watercolumn .
This of course is just a "possible theory" and thought it was worth bringing to discussion.
anyone thoughts out their?
-Graves
I ,too tried the plenum based on the Jaubert theory back in the 90's also, noting the detritus accumulation under the bottom plate.However I also noticed when I broke it down the temperature in the substrate was considerably warmer than the tank water. This has really got me wondering about the Hovanec article.
In his experiment the temperature was uncontrolled and ran without heaters. It would make sense that the finesand would have a certain (R) value, maitaining a more stable temperature in the substrate. From what I have read metalbolic rates in thge substrate are sensitive to temperature. It would make sense a larger grain size would have a lesser (R) value , and fluncuate temperature more in the substrate through circulation within the watercolumn .
This of course is just a "possible theory" and thought it was worth bringing to discussion.
anyone thoughts out their?
-Graves
Aquarist007
New member
that's why I went to running a remote deep sand bed
herring_fish
Crazy Designer
Remote Sand Bed?
Remote Sand Bed?
What is the meaning and advantage of a REMOTE deep sand bed?
Remote Sand Bed?
What is the meaning and advantage of a REMOTE deep sand bed?
elegance coral
They call me EC
Re: Remote Sand Bed?
Re: Remote Sand Bed?
The meaning is simply a sand bed that's not in the display. It's in a container that's positioned "remotely" from the display, but plumed into the same system.
The advantage, for me anyway, is the ability to keep it clean. A deep sand bed in the display with rocks stacked on top of it, is a ticking time bomb. Detritus builds up within the sand and there's not much you can do about it. Over time water quality gets worse and worse. With a remote DSB you can filter the water before it reaches the sand bed, greatly reducing the amount of detritus that accumulates. There's no need to stack rocks on top of a RDSB making vacuuming the sand very easy. You can get the nitrate reduction without the negative effects of a DSB in the display.
Re: Remote Sand Bed?
The meaning is simply a sand bed that's not in the display. It's in a container that's positioned "remotely" from the display, but plumed into the same system.
The advantage, for me anyway, is the ability to keep it clean. A deep sand bed in the display with rocks stacked on top of it, is a ticking time bomb. Detritus builds up within the sand and there's not much you can do about it. Over time water quality gets worse and worse. With a remote DSB you can filter the water before it reaches the sand bed, greatly reducing the amount of detritus that accumulates. There's no need to stack rocks on top of a RDSB making vacuuming the sand very easy. You can get the nitrate reduction without the negative effects of a DSB in the display.
herring_fish
Crazy Designer
I simple secondary tank.
I simple secondary tank.
Oh, a sand bed in your sump, a secondary refugium or even a tertiary tank just for the sand bed.
Good thanks
I simple secondary tank.
Oh, a sand bed in your sump, a secondary refugium or even a tertiary tank just for the sand bed.
Good thanks
Whys
New member
Paul,
Your central premise is that all DSBs are inherently flawed. That is not a resolved debate and points to author bias. Given that you admit to not having much first had experience with a DSB, your choice of thread and theory seems suspect.
To be clear, "anoxic" and "anaerobic" are two sides of the same coin. Anoxic means devoid of oxygen. Anaerobic means metabolism (life) without oxygen. Thus the bottom layer of a DSB can become anoxic and any bacteria living there would be anaerobic.
If you are going to purposefully detract, thru argumentative fallacy, an element of this hobby you choose not to engage in, then please at least keep your facts straight.
Thank you.
Your central premise is that all DSBs are inherently flawed. That is not a resolved debate and points to author bias. Given that you admit to not having much first had experience with a DSB, your choice of thread and theory seems suspect.
To be clear, "anoxic" and "anaerobic" are two sides of the same coin. Anoxic means devoid of oxygen. Anaerobic means metabolism (life) without oxygen. Thus the bottom layer of a DSB can become anoxic and any bacteria living there would be anaerobic.
If you are going to purposefully detract, thru argumentative fallacy, an element of this hobby you choose not to engage in, then please at least keep your facts straight.
Thank you.
Aquarist007
New member
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14929952#post14929952 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Whys
Paul,
Your central premise is that all DSBs are inherently flawed. That is not a resolved debate and points to author bias. Given that you admit to not having much first had experience with a DSB, your choice of thread and theory seems suspect.
To be clear, "anoxic" and "anaerobic" are two sides of the same coin. Anoxic means devoid of oxygen. Anaerobic means metabolism (life) without oxygen. Thus the bottom layer of a DSB can become anoxic and any bacteria living there would be anaerobic.
If you are going to purposefully detract, thru argumentative fallacy, an element of this hobby you choose not to engage in, then please at least keep your facts straight.
Thank you.
I am shocked at reading a post like this.
PaulB has probably more experince in this hobby then you have years on this earth.
This kind of post does not hold much water with experienced guys like Paul ,I am sure, but what it does do is deter them from posting on here or bothering with inexperienced guys like you, me and the many others.
And this is what bothers me in that I have the upmost respect and regard for someone as experienced and successful as Paul and the very few other reefers that I would put in the same boat or class as him.
Paul B
Premium Member
Capn, although I appreciate your trying to defend me I am a big boy and actually like it when someone questions my beliefs.
I am human and do make mistakes. Maybe Whys can educate me.
Whys, you are correct in saying I do not have much experience running DSBs but my first system was a DSB 25 years before they were commonly used. I also was not in a coma since they have been invented. I even know some of the authors that advocated them in the eightees and ninetees.
I stand by what I said in that they are flawed. The technology as to how they work is not flawed, but the technology as to what keeps them working is flawed.
DSBs have been around for 20 years or so, where are the tanks that ran these systems 20 or even 15 years ago?
There are a handful of even 10 year old DSBs. I know of two.
Any substrait in a closed tank will fail eventually. Even my RUGF.
The difference is the size of the particles. Smaller particles will clog sooner. The theory of a DSB is that organisms populate the sand and burrow down to the lower levels there by letting in water to be treated by the bacteria to remove nitrate.
Everyone knows that will work, initially. As the bed matures and detritus accumulates, which is composed largely of dead bacteria, the anerobic or anoxic areas (yes I know they are different and I called Bob Goemans to tell him of his mistake)
Can not support any life except for certain bacteria.
Pods, worms, crabs, or anything else can not live there nor can they visit there even for a few seconds. Eventually, that layer will not have any water circulation and it will become anoxic. Totally useless for our purposes because no water can get there to be treated. There is no animal life there due to no oxygen. The spaces between the sand grains will clog with dead bacteria and detritus and if you drilled a hole in the bottom of such a tank, I doubt any water would leak out.
The waste materials that get treated in a DSB do not magically get beemed to another dimension. There is always some solid waste materials in an aquarium and it does not take much of this to clog sand.
Another thought is while these organisms will dig in the substrait, after a few years many of these minute animals will no longer re produce. After a short while most of the bed will be very barron.
So then Whys, what part of the theory of DSBs is not flawed?[
QUOTE]That is not a resolved debate and points to author bias.[/QUOTE]
I certainly am biased. But I am willing to learn. I have stated how I came to this conclusion. I have been studying these things for quite some time but if you have another theory as to how a DSB will work for 20, 30, or 40 years, I would love you to educate me on it. If it sounds reasonably maybe I will tear down my tank and install one.
Last edited:
Aquarist007
New member
I certainly am biased. But I am willing to learn. I have stated how I came to this conclusion. I have been studying these things for quite some time but if you have another theory as to how a DSB will work for 20, 30, or 40 years, I would love you to educate me on it. If it sounds reasonably maybe I will tear down my tank and install one. [/QUOTE]
Paul, I can fully appreciate the fact that you are tough as nails and if someone picks a fight with you that's fine by you
I just don't like negative and disrespectful posts period:strooper:
Similar threads
