Sand Bed Vacuum Test - Phosphate Liberation?

[CNoonan]

I maintain around 30 reef tanks and have done so for years. I siphon clean all of the sand that is not under rock just about every water change that I do.. if not, then definitely every other. It only makes sense to me... why remove perfectly clean looking water when you can remove dirty brown and nutrient filled water that rinses through the sand.

I also 100% agree with this comment:

For me, this is simple. When organic matter rots, it releases nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus. This is why gardeners use compost piles. Compost piles are not good for our systems because we try to limit these nutrients. If we leave a sand bed untouched, organic matter will accumulate in it. The longer it sits untouched, the more organic matter it will hold. The more organic matter sitting in a sand bed rotting, the more nutrients it will be releasing.

Most of us siphon water out of our tanks when we do water changes. I figure we have a choice. We can just stand there holding the hose, and waiting for the water to drain from the tank, while leaving all the rot and decay on the bottom of the tank, or we can put a gravel vac on the end of the hose, and remove the rot and decay, so it doesn't pollute our water.

 

[cr reef]

Personally over the years I've tries both ways, leaving it alone and vacuuming the bed.

For my tank;
Vacuuming it seems to produce the best results. I've definatley come to this conclusion as of the last six months as I'm only around my tank a couple of times a month and have been lucky to do water changes monthly at best. While my wife is helping with the dosing I haven't had any algae issues or loss of life during this period of time.

This leads me to believe that it's largely due to the removal of dietris from the sand. I also believe this is the reason why some of the newer people in SW have a hard time with algae as they aren't keeping the sand clean enough.

As a disclaimer I also have well over 100 lbs of rock which helps in the filtering process where today many people are going with less rock to gallons of water which may also contribute to higher algae issues.

Just my thoughts

 

[foxandhound]

The bacteria in the sandbed cant metabolize the waste fast enough iMO.

I vaccum at every other water change, but I ONLY vacuum the sandbed in the front of my display tank. I would never reposition rockwork or corals to access the sandbed I cant get to.

I also dont remove sand to clean it. I use a gravel vac and pick up a heap of sand then bend the siphon tube to release it. All with one hand too. I shake it and sand falls, but the water and yuk is siphoned. I lose only a very tiny bit of sand doing this. This is obviously not possible in a very tall tank. I have a 75 G.

I believe this is important in keeping waste minimal because if I dont do it, as the OP mentioned, there will be build-up in parts of the bed.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

1. Don't touch it or you will release nitrates, phosphates, sulfates and dissolved organics into the tank which will harm your livestock. There are microfauna/benthic organisms in there doing the work. Leave them alone!
.

While I do not vacuum sand, I'm not sure why one would think it would raise inorganic phosphate in the water a few hours later.

But most assuredly, it won't raise sulfate. Whoever claimed that has no understanding of seawater. It is already very, very high in the water column (2700 ppm or so), and if anything, is going to be lower, not higher, in a sand bed.

 

[Hephalump]

I'll chime in here to state that I have always had trouble with my systems until recently when I reduced my DSB to a SSB and started siphoning 50% of the sandbed at every water change. I siphon out murky brown water and pour in crystal clear water every third day, and now I am finally able to keep acros and montis.

The idea that you can eradicate the bacterial population of your sandbed with a sand vac seems ludicrous to me. Would you attempt to use a vacuum cleaner to sterilize a hospital? You barely even make a dent in the bacterial population on your skin when you take a shower, so how could siphoning your sandbed make the slightest difference to the bacterial population there?

 

[elegance coral]

It is sooooo nice to see all the posts in this thread supporting the practice of vacuuming a sand bed. Almost five years ago, when I first came to these forums, every time I mentioned the fact that I vacuumed my sand, people would go crazy. They'd all be saying, "You can't disturb a sand bed or it will spontaneously combust killing all your critters, and everyone in a three mile radios.":lol: I'm glad the truth seems to finally be getting out. :beer:

 

[Dog boy Dave]

I am amazed to hear every one here chiming in as if all sand beds were the same. I keep a remote deep sand bed. Its about ten inches deep, very fine and much older than most experts say they can be kept. I do not vacuum it nor do i disturb it much. It is effective and i can manage the nutrient level in my system to control the growth on the surface of the sand at will. Usually deep sand beds like this are unsucessful long term when attempted in a main display. In the past it was common to attempt them though. When kept in the main display, they usually crashed withn five to ten years. However I have seen them last longer. I have also seen corals die the day after these older deep sand beds were disturbed. I have seen it more than once in several systems. In these same systems normal water changes did not affect the corals imediate health. Usually when i see sand in a main display it is not set up as functioning deep sand bed system. Of course you should have a method to export nutrients from your substrate. Vacuuming it is probably a good idea. But please do not confuse a layer of sand in your main display or even worse in someone elses with a mature deep sand bed system. Anyone who does so will risk the life of their corals.

 

[Paul B]

It's true that a clean sand bed will support far fewer tiny critters than a dirty one. My goal isn't to create an environment where tiny critters that feed on rot and decay can prosper. My goal is to provide an environment where the delicate creatures, I pay for, can prosper.

If those "undesirable" creatures are thriving, the creatures you paid for should also thrive.
They are only more desirable to us because they are not free but to them, they still need the right conditions to live.

Its about ten inches deep, very fine and much older than most experts say they can be kept

How old is the sand bed? I am not a big fan of DSBs of any type and I am interested.

I also do not vacuum anything but I have a RUGF that does not show any detritus, but every few years I stir it up and suck out anything with a diatom filter.

 

[elegance coral]

It is effective

Effective at what? What evidence are you basing its effectiveness on? Don't say, "I have a pretty tank.", because that doesn't show your sand bed is doing anything. You may have a pretty tank in spite of the DSB, and not because of it.

Usually deep sand beds like this are unsucessful long term when attempted in a main display. In the past it was common to attempt them though. When kept in the main display, they usually crashed withn five to ten years.

Why would anyone support a practice that is known to crash tanks?
If the sand is kept remotely it is still in the same small body of water. The exact same processes that take place in the sand, in a display, will take place in the sand, in a remote container. These processes may be slowed in a remote container, because the nutrients fueling these processes can be reduced, but the end result is the same. On day one, the sand is clean. A month later, and there's a little rotting organic matter in the sand. A year later, and there's even more. Several years later, and there can be huge quantities of rotting organic matter in the sand. As organic matter rots, it releases nutrients into the environment. The more organic matter that's rotting, the more nutrients that are being released. So.... As time progresses the corals begin to suffer, as the OP has noticed, or the hobbyist is forced to step up methods of dealing with these excess nutrients. The problem is that the nutrients being release from this pile of rot and decay continues to climb. The husbandry techniques used today, may not be sufficient for tomorrow. At some point, despite the best efforts of the hobbyists, this growing nutrient source typically overwhelms the husbandry techniques, and animals die.

I have also seen corals die the day after these older deep sand beds were disturbed. I have seen it more than once in several systems.

And why did these corals die? It wasn't because of the tiny particles of calcium carbonate. It was due to the rot and filth that accumulated within these sand beds.
If this is so common that you've seen it in several systems, why would anyone support such a practice?

Usually when i see sand in a main display it is not set up as functioning deep sand bed system.

This sounds like a statement you would find in one of Shemik's articles. The only thing statements like this accomplish is to provide a means of blaming the hobbyists when the system fails, and not the system itself. It's virtually impossible to set up a "functioning deep sand bed system", as described by Shemik. This makes it real easy to tell a hobbyist, right after they've lost all their corals, that it was their fault, because they didn't have a true "functioning deep sand bed system".

 

[Paul B]

I think a remote DSB is better only because the thing can be removed easily when it crashes, as it will sooner or later.

It's virtually impossible to set up a "functioning deep sand bed system", as described by Shemik.

This is partially true. You may be able to set it up, but the design of it dictates that it could not last. There is no such thing as a no maintenance system and those "creatures" that are supposed to maintain the thing have other Ideas.
No creature is going to dig down in a bed where there is no oxygen.
I can understand people installing DSBs because they were new and they seemed to have some good points. I know better and installed one at the very beginning of the hobby. Bad Idea. But what do I know? heck I still run a UG filter and of course that can't work. :facepalm:

 

[Dog boy Dave]

Effective at what? What evidence are you basing its effectiveness on? Don't say, "I have a pretty tank.", because that doesn't show your sand bed is doing anything. You may have a pretty tank in spite of the DSB, and not because of it.



Why would anyone support a practice that is known to crash tanks?
If the sand is kept remotely it is still in the same small body of water. The exact same processes that take place in the sand, in a display, will take place in the sand, in a remote container. These processes may be slowed in a remote container, because the nutrients fueling these processes can be reduced, but the end result is the same. On day one, the sand is clean. A month later, and there's a little rotting organic matter in the sand. A year later, and there's even more. Several years later, and there can be huge quantities of rotting organic matter in the sand. As organic matter rots, it releases nutrients into the environment. The more organic matter that's rotting, the more nutrients that are being released. So.... As time progresses the corals begin to suffer, as the OP has noticed, or the hobbyist is forced to step up methods of dealing with these excess nutrients. The problem is that the nutrients being release from this pile of rot and decay continues to climb. The husbandry techniques used today, may not be sufficient for tomorrow. At some point, despite the best efforts of the hobbyists, this growing nutrient source typically overwhelms the husbandry techniques, and animals die.




And why did these corals die? It wasn't because of the tiny particles of calcium carbonate. It was due to the rot and filth that accumulated within these sand beds.
If this is so common that you've seen it in several systems, why would anyone support such a practice?




This sounds like a statement you would find in one of Shemik's articles. The only thing statements like this accomplish is to provide a means of blaming the hobbyists when the system fails, and not the system itself. It's virtually impossible to set up a "functioning deep sand bed system", as described by Shemik. This makes it real easy to tell a hobbyist, right after they've lost all their corals, that it was their fault, because they didn't have a true "functioning deep sand bed system".

Wow, Its hostile responses like this that keep a lot of older hobbiest from posting on this site. "Dont say its because you have a pretty tank, you have a pretty tank in spite of your remote DSB...Are you mad bro? I am glad that you can figure out how my tank works from one post. I havent been able to figure it out in 45 years of keeping it.

"Why would anyone support a practice that is known to crash tanks? " I dont know. Why would anyone put sand in their main display and then build a wall of rocks? It looks bad and doesnt work but they still do it. Maybe they are just confused?

This sounds like a statement you would find in one of Shemik's articles. The only thing statements like this accomplish is to provide a means of blaming the hobbyists when the system fails, and not the system itself. It's virtually impossible to set up a "functioning deep sand bed system", as described by Shemik. This makes it real easy to tell a hobbyist, right after they've lost all their corals, that it was their fault, because they didn't have a true "functioning deep sand bed system."

I am not blaming anyone for any thing. I dont care. I was trying to share my experience. It works for me. I have looked at your elegant system m8. We were building stuff like that in the 80's. I have worked systems like yours in the past and I am familiar with them. Even though I have used those methods in the past, I dont feel the need to shoot or attack your methods. Some of us have learned and moved on. I still have questions. I wish i was smart enough as some of you to figure it out from a paragraph or two. If pictures of my tank inspire people to atempt to use the same methods as me, they often thank me later. But honestly m8, everything that happens in my tank is my fault. As far as your tank though, its not my concern.

I thought this was about stirring a bed of sand. Oh Elegant one, If you have a true deep sand bed you probably shouldnt stir it. That was my point. If you have a layer of sand, mostly covered with rocks then do what you want. Talk to me in ten years and let me know how it works out for you. If you want to turn this thread into a DSB bashing thread then please start your own so I can avoid it without avoiding this entire froum.

 

[elegance coral]

If those "undesirable" creatures are thriving, the creatures you paid for should also thrive.

For the record, I didn't call them "undesirable". That was you.

:headwally: Paul....... Why do you keep making me go through this??? You're statement is not accurate. These "undesirables" are decomposers. They thrive in very high nutrient environments. Seriously. They feed on dead and rotting, animals and poo. They are the maggots of the ocean. The animals we pay for don't thrive under such foul conditions. They thrive under clean, and pristine conditions.

They are only more desirable to us because they are not free but to them, they still need the right conditions to live.

I agree, but they need clean and healthy environments to thrive in. Not poo and bug infested swamps.

 

[Dog boy Dave]

Paul, I have some older images of my DSB somewhere on this forum. You can search for them if you search my name. I wouldnt want to corrupt anyone by posting any new images here so these days, I tend to post more on some of the other less hostile forums. Most of my newer image posts are someplace else.
Years ago on this forum we used to have a seperate forum for discussion of DSB. The tone got so hostile and juvenile that he left about the same time as Eric closed his forum. Too bad though this board is weaker without them.

If those "undesirable" creatures are thriving, the creatures you paid for should also thrive.
They are only more desirable to us because they are not free but to them, they still need the right conditions to live.




How old is the sand bed? I am not a big fan of DSBs of any type and I am interested.

I also do not vacuum anything but I have a RUGF that does not show any detritus, but every few years I stir it up and suck out anything with a diatom filter.

 

[elegance coral]

Wow, Its hostile responses like this that keep a lot of older hobbiest from posting on thyis site.

I didn't mean for my post to come across as hostile. I did disagree with what you were saying, but it's hard to disagree with someone in black and white without coming across as harsh. I asked questions in an attempt to give you the opportunity to justify your claims, or support your position. I tried to make my point, but at no time was I attacking you.

"Dont say its because you have a pretty tank, you have a pretty tank in spite of your remote DSB...Are you mad bro? I am glad that you can figure out how my tank works from one post. I havent been able to figure it out in 45 years of keeping it.

WOW. Your skills at rearranging my words to come up with a meaning that suits you is impressive. You know full well that's not what I said though.

You and I have been through this before. In that thread, you made statements along the lines that your tank proves the DSB "works". Well, it doesn't, and I was simply trying to avoid going through that whole thing again.

I thought this was about stirring a bed of sand. Oh Elegant one, If you have a true deep sand bed you probably shouldnt stir it. That was my point. If you want to turn this thread into a DSB bashing thread then please start your own so I can avoid it without avoiding this entire froum.

This thread is about removing detritus/nutrients from a sand bed. You are the one that brought up DSB's. The OP is disturbing a sand bed that has been maintained similar to a DSB. I think what they're doing proves that this can be done, if done properly. Hopefully, they'll continue documenting the process, and show the results as the experiment continues.

 

[Paul B]

These "undesirables" are decomposers. They thrive in very high nutrient environments. Seriously. They feed on dead and rotting, animals and poo.

Elegance, sorry, I was referring to things like pods, brittle stars and such things and I guess you were referring to denitrifying bacteria.
I was just trying to say that if those creatures, (that I listed) are living well, then higher creatures will also.
Sorry if I misunderstood you.

Paul, I have some older images of my DSB somewhere on this forum. You can search for them if you search my name. I wouldnt want to corrupt anyone by posting any new images here so these days,

Dave, I also apologize to you. I am sure your DSB tank is beautiful.
I don't like DSBs and have my reasons but you are correct, I should not say things about them in a thread not dedicated to them. I get carried away.
I have a UG filter. You can make fun of that if you like. :beer:

 

[Dog boy Dave]

Elegance, sorry, I was referring to things like pods, brittle stars and such things and I guess you were referring to denitrifying bacteria.
I was just trying to say that if those creatures, (that I listed) are living well, then higher creatures will also.
Sorry if I misunderstood you.



Dave, I also apologize to you. I am sure your DSB tank is beautiful.
I don't like DSBs and have my reasons but you are correct, I should not say things about them in a thread not dedicated to them. I get carried away.
I have a UG filter. You can make fun of that if you like. :beer:

Naw man, your post was quite civil. I wasnt responding to your post at all. Normally i ignore trolls but sometimes I forget that answering them makes them think they are real and i get carried away. My apologies if you thought i was whining at you. I shot some quick video after i read your post. Dont know where the caulerpa came from. Cant remember seeing any in the last ten years or so. In the last year or so it has grown and currently out competes the cheato in the sump. Doesnt seem to be as poisonous as the experts say though. My guys eat it regularly. ANyway just a short video of my struggling system. Please dont try this at home.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFfRqTOZ_u8&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 

[Nano sapiens]

I am a proponent of vacuuming the sand bed, especially in a small Nano tank like I have. I only keep a mixed bag of LPS and SPS corals (no fish, crabs, etc), but the amount of detritus I vacuum out every week always amazes me.

It is my opinion/experience (been at this since the mid-80's) that the accumulation of detritus in a SB and the LR is the biggest contributor to a loss of vigor and possible catastrophic failure in an aquarium. Besides vacuuming the open SB weekly, I vacuum under the LR every month to remove all the detritus collecting there due to advection.

 

[bayoupr]

I don't vacuum my sand bed. I stir my sand a 3-4hrs before my water change which I do bi-weekly. This gives my skimmer time to skim up the most of the trash. I have a SSB.

 

[Paul B]

ANyway just a short video of my struggling system. Please dont try this at home.

Dave you have some nice healthy stuff living in there. Very nice, but which fish is making those dog barking sounds? :worried:

I also took a video but the shimmering light gives me a headache in the video. :headwally:

 

[elegance coral]

Alright dog boy. We had a nice productive thread going here in the Advanced forum, until you came along making statements you can't back up.

This is a thread about removing the rot and decay from sand beds, and the potential benefits of doing so. You come along saying that your 10" pile of rot is "effective". Well, the natural question to ask is, effective at what? Which is what I did. You have absolutely no clue what it's effective at, so to avoid the subject, and to save face, you belittle my system, and flame me. You're not helping, or adding anything of meaning to this thread. You're simply here causing problems, and mucking up a good thread.

If you have something meaningful to add to the thread, by all means, go for it, but don't get a chip on your shoulder when someone asks you to clarify your statements. Especially if your statements are contradictory to everything else that's been said in the thread. If you don't have anything meaningful to add, and you're simply here to cause problems, please just move on so we can continue what could be a really great thread.