nycsicktank
New member
tagging along...get this thread going~
RDSB results
- Thread starter fade2black
- Start date
OldmillXxX
Premium Member
Going back a little, why will the sand have to be replaced? Isn't that the point? To let the sand age and develope the necassary items needed to make it what it is? If you are speaking of the sand slowly getting desolved, why not use a sand that is not aragonite based? Without starting WWIII, a silica based sand can be used. Correct me if I am mistaken, but isn't one idea of a deep sand bed to trap to toxins and hold them where they cannot do harm?
Old,
One of the benefits of the set up is that you can take it off line before issues arrises. I seem to remember reading 2 years is a good estimate of when to replace your sand. The logic is to prevent detritus build up in the bucket which could lead to other issues. If you want the set up to continue you can add a second bucket to your system a few months before you plan on removing the original one. This way the bacteria have become established in the new bucket when the old one goes off line.
The sand bed will trap but it is a finite system and can only hold a specific amount of toxins. Once it has reached capacity it is no longer performing its job so to speak and you are left with "free toxins" in your system.
One of the benefits of the set up is that you can take it off line before issues arrises. I seem to remember reading 2 years is a good estimate of when to replace your sand. The logic is to prevent detritus build up in the bucket which could lead to other issues. If you want the set up to continue you can add a second bucket to your system a few months before you plan on removing the original one. This way the bacteria have become established in the new bucket when the old one goes off line.
The sand bed will trap but it is a finite system and can only hold a specific amount of toxins. Once it has reached capacity it is no longer performing its job so to speak and you are left with "free toxins" in your system.
If you are using carbonite sand, it will have a half life through dissolving of about 2 years but the upside to that is that is adds hardness to the water. But eventually you will have to add sand or replace what you have. Adding is tricky because of the chemistry of placing new sand on top of the old.
zachtos
Active member
I installed a 55G trash bin RDSB on my 240G system w/ 250G or so sump setup from the START. I ran into nitrate problems STILL even after reducing feedings (400 or so lbs of LR BUT over 75% started as baserock/deadrock). I solved my nitrate issues w/ my sulfur denitrator and will continue to use the RDSB as a failsafe/backup denitrator...
... but am much happier w/ the effectiveness of my sulfur denitrator BIG time.
... but am much happier w/ the effectiveness of my sulfur denitrator BIG time.
anothermineral
Member
I have a 210G BB SPS dominated tank with a 75G RDSB w/ 6" of oolithic sand (~345#). Total water volume is ~ 300G. I have 4 medium size tangs (4" or so) that I keep well fed. The setup has been up and running since 10/2007, however, all livestock except for the LR and sand came from a prior setup (110G total water volume w/ ~100# of LR) that did not employ a DSB of any kind.
The RDSB has been in place since the beginning. Flow through the RDSB is ~400GPH. I also have a small power head (Aquaclear 201) in the RDSB for some additional flow. I stir the top inch or so monthly. The RDSB is not lighted.
In my previous setup (~110G total water volume w/ ~100# of LR), I struggled with nitrate levels ranging from 5-10ppm. I performed 25% water changes monthly. That system had been running for ~2 years and the nitrate levels were consistent throughout that period.
In my existing setup, (~300G total water volume w/ 150# of LR and ~345# of live sand) nitrate levels are undetectable. I perform ~10% water change every 3 weeks or so.
General Comments:
I'm glad I employed the RDSB. I believe it's helping control nitrates as well as aiding in maintaining PH and Alkalinity, not to mention the added water volume.
It also makes doing water changes easier, as I can take it off line and perform the water change via the RDSB.
In my opinion, I also feel I'm able to run less carbon than I had in past systems while maintaining similar or better water clarity. I have no quantitative data to judge water quality to support this, I just feel I'm able to maintain better water clarity w/ less carbon.
For comparison purposes, my current system has much better flow and much better skimming, which no doubt also contributes to the improved water quality.
Also, the added water volume in my current setup makes the system more stable and overall maintenance much easier as well, however, if I had to do it all over again, I would still employ the RDSB.
The RDSB has been in place since the beginning. Flow through the RDSB is ~400GPH. I also have a small power head (Aquaclear 201) in the RDSB for some additional flow. I stir the top inch or so monthly. The RDSB is not lighted.
In my previous setup (~110G total water volume w/ ~100# of LR), I struggled with nitrate levels ranging from 5-10ppm. I performed 25% water changes monthly. That system had been running for ~2 years and the nitrate levels were consistent throughout that period.
In my existing setup, (~300G total water volume w/ 150# of LR and ~345# of live sand) nitrate levels are undetectable. I perform ~10% water change every 3 weeks or so.
General Comments:
I'm glad I employed the RDSB. I believe it's helping control nitrates as well as aiding in maintaining PH and Alkalinity, not to mention the added water volume.
It also makes doing water changes easier, as I can take it off line and perform the water change via the RDSB.
In my opinion, I also feel I'm able to run less carbon than I had in past systems while maintaining similar or better water clarity. I have no quantitative data to judge water quality to support this, I just feel I'm able to maintain better water clarity w/ less carbon.
For comparison purposes, my current system has much better flow and much better skimming, which no doubt also contributes to the improved water quality.
Also, the added water volume in my current setup makes the system more stable and overall maintenance much easier as well, however, if I had to do it all over again, I would still employ the RDSB.
as well as aiding in maintaining PH and Alkalinity,
I'm skeptical that is does anything useful in that regard for a typical reef aquarium with high needs for calcium and alkalinity. There is just not going to be much dissolved. In only dissolves deep down in it, and like a CaCO3/CO2 reactor operating in a similar fashion, does not typically raise pH, but actually lowers it.
I'm skeptical that is does anything useful in that regard for a typical reef aquarium with high needs for calcium and alkalinity. There is just not going to be much dissolved. In only dissolves deep down in it, and like a CaCO3/CO2 reactor operating in a similar fashion, does not typically raise pH, but actually lowers it.
KEstep
Premium Member
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12096652#post12096652 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Randy Holmes-Farley
I'm skeptical that is does anything useful in that regard for a typical reef aquarium with high needs for calcium and alkalinity. There is just not going to be much dissolved. In only dissolves deep down in it, and like a CaCO3/CO2 reactor operating in a similar fashion, does not typically raise pH, but actually lowers it.
Do you think that an aged bucket might be able to keep the ph in a tank lower than normal? I have been battling low ph that I attributed to my Calcium Reactor but I never thought of the RDSB. The ph is not that bad but I have a very hard time swinging it out of the 7.8-8.0 range even with the use of a Kalkwasser Reactor.
I also agree about the sand not dissolving much. Your ph would need to get pretty low which would have it's own detrimental effect in a system.
fade2black
Premium Member
Might be a good question to ask Randy in his forum.
Yeah, for the sand to dissolve you would need to be around 6.5 and I think everything else in your tank would be dead by that point.
Yeah, for the sand to dissolve you would need to be around 6.5 and I think everything else in your tank would be dead by that point.
My Ph, however, seems to be a pretty constant 8.3. However I cannot attribute this to a particular thing.
That's certainly good. Good aeration with normal air will achieve that, but sand will not help.
Do you think that an aged bucket might be able to keep the ph in a tank lower than normal?
I don't think sand does much for pH at all, aside from possibly trapping organics that degrade and end up as CO2, reducing pH. But if you have pH issues, I would not look to sand changes as a solution. Better aeration with fresh air and using limewater are the best ways to increase pH. Reactors often do not supply saturated limewater, unfortunately.
This has more:
Low pH: Causes and Cures
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2004-09/rhf/index.htm
and
The "How To" Guide to Reef Aquarium Chemistry for Beginners, Part 3: pH
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2007-05/rhf/index.php
That's certainly good. Good aeration with normal air will achieve that, but sand will not help.
Do you think that an aged bucket might be able to keep the ph in a tank lower than normal?
I don't think sand does much for pH at all, aside from possibly trapping organics that degrade and end up as CO2, reducing pH. But if you have pH issues, I would not look to sand changes as a solution. Better aeration with fresh air and using limewater are the best ways to increase pH. Reactors often do not supply saturated limewater, unfortunately.
This has more:
Low pH: Causes and Cures
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2004-09/rhf/index.htm
and
The "How To" Guide to Reef Aquarium Chemistry for Beginners, Part 3: pH
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2007-05/rhf/index.php
