Want a maintenance-free substrate- SSB or DSB for 30"x18"

[Newreeflady]

Hi All,

Not trying to start a bb v ssb v dsb fight. Just trying to find the best thing for my situation. Spec: 56g column 30L x 18D x 24H.

My thinking/experience so far:

bb: Must vacuum this, so rather not. It'd be OK if I could concentrate it all in one corner, but I tried this in a previous system and didn't have much luck. I don't think I run the extreme flow necessary to keep a bare-bottom system.

ssb: Can I obtain a cleaning crew to handle keeping this fully cleaned, with no help from me (with exception of replenishing the crew!)? *** is anyone doing this? ***

dsb: I would have to find someone who is running a similar sq ft system and having success for more than 5 years.


Bottom line:
Do you have a nearly maintenance-free substrate? I would like for my maintenance duties to include sump vacuuming and water changes. I don't want to have to go into the tank to clean up much at all.

Thanks for any help!
Angela

 

[tmz]

I use oolictic fine grained sand for shallow beds( about 1/2 inch to an inch) with deeper sand pools here and there for wrasses in several tanks. A sand sifting goby and some nasarius snails keep it clean for the most part. I puff it up with a turkey baster from time to time to free any waste they miss and send it into the water column where it can be skimmed/filtered out. The gobies will spray sand from time to time requiring me to puff it off corals.

 

[Newreeflady]

That doesn't sound so bad.

I'm hoping to keep an lta and I know they burrow their feet sometimes, right? I also really like the midas blenny, but I think they need a deep bed as well.

It's really hard to choose what to do- if it were possible I'd really want a dsb- my first tank had one and I love the cool critters and the sand layers that form. Plus, burrowing wrasses, anemones and blennies would be happy. I never saw it through with that tank- it did well for a year, but then I moved and broke it down This was all before the old-tank-syndrome thing reared its head here on RC.

How deep would you say your sand pools are? How do you keep them pools? ie, not settling into one even bed?

Tx!
Angela

 

[Newreeflady]

Don't be mad...

I think I'm going to do the dsb- 4". This tank will be torn down in 3 years due to finishing my degree here, and I'm hoping that when I tear it down I'll find that it isn't all that awful. But, if I do, then lesson learned.

Thanks for helping. Sometimes I just need to talk things through then all of a sudden something dawns on me

-A

 

[Gravesj1s]

I haven't seen any evidence that would warrant a 4" sandbed.This would include the species you mentioned.Percieved necessary and actual necessary are completly different.
In the wild some use this sand to burrow as a defense mechanism,that doesnt mean its a must for survival in a home aquarium.An example:Tangs and surgeonfish schol as a defensive stratedgy but that doesn't mean they need to in an aquarium.
An anemone extracts into the substrate so it isn't eaten,the wrasse as far as I know sleeps their probably for the same reason.

Advocates of dsb often bring plankton production as if its some special thing only dsb can achieve.I use a small harem of peppermint shrimp that I maintain in my sump.They breed and release the tiny live shrimp everynight.I found it works better having them in the sump rather than in the tank because when they spawn they go to the upper water column and they end up in the skimmer.In the sump the return outlet is pointing toward the bottom and keeps them in the tank longer as a live food source.

 

[tmz]

I like a deep sand bed for it's look and the diversity of benthic fauna but they need some sand replacement with live sand from time to time. An long tentacle anemone(Macrodactyla doreensis) needs a sediment bed of about 4 inches to bury it's stem.
My 90 gallon (first reef tank) had a 5 inch sand bed. It did well for about 5 years . I stretched it to 7yrs before nitrates became an issue even though I diluted it as I built 500gallons of new system around it over the years. I have siphoned out about 2/3rds of it at this point and the tank works better.There was a lot of crap in the stuff I siphoned out and some evidence of sulfide formation.
As for sand pools they can be formed around the base of the rock with extra pieces of rock or along the perimeters of the structure of course adjusting the flow to match high flow needs for sps and to minimize sand blowing can be a bit tedious.

Good luck and have fun.

 

[Newreeflady]

Hey Tom,

Since you have experience with this, could you give me a guideline to how frequently and how much I should vacuum out and replace the sand? I assume you want to get it all the way to the bottom- would a 1/8 replacement every 6 months suffice? Or, ?

Oh, also, would you use all sugar-sized sand, or a mix of different sands? I know the course all ends up on top in the end, so I'm figuring the former, but thought I'd ask.

Thanks so much!
Angela

 

[Gravesj1s]

tmc, I guess we both hit send at the same time.

Anyway good luck with your tank with whatever you decide Newreeflady.

 

[Newreeflady]

Thanks, guys! I feel like this has helped me figure out that this is the best move for me. I'd rather go in intermittently and replace some sand then go in frequently to stir things up, or vacuum, etc. Also, some animals I want to keep will probably really appreciate the sandbed- it is a much less stressful environment for some fish and inverts. So, for my personal preferences, I think this will work well.


-Angela

 

[Gary Majchrzak]

Midas Blenny is a planktivore and will stay well away from the bottom of the aquarium

 

[Newreeflady]

I think I was thinking about the Yellow Watchman Goby I had and somehow thought they looked alike or something. :/ thanks!

Angela

 

[tmz]

If you are going to use a sand sifting goby the finer sand is better. Some argue mixing grains can cause more compaction and clogging. I used medium grain in the dsb tank and only fine sugar grained in the shallow bed tanks where I keep the sandsifting gobies.

I never changed and replenished mine properly, sad to say. I think a cup or two per week of new live sand i and an equal amount of old sand out would do. I would not dig all the way down lest a hydrogen sulfide pocket be disturbed but rather just take it from the top.

Gravej1s: yes we crossed in the mail.



A deep a properly maintained deep sand bed is a one of a number of viable strategies for managing nitrate and some phosphate that can be aesthetically pleasing to some reefers.

Some species do need deep sand. In addition to some anemones think about jawfish
(Opistognathus) or leopard wrasses(macropharyngodon) as examples..The later often do mortal damage to their mouths when the dive into glass in shallow sand beds. According to Dr.Shimek the former reqiure 3.1inches of relatively fine substrate to burrow in .Several varieties of wrasse sleep in the sand as well, halichoeres chioropterus (lime wrasse) and halichoeres chrysus, come to mind..

 

[Gravesj1s]

-tmc,
I have no intention of debating the merits of dsb vs ssb vs bb,or what ever other types and will agree that certain sp.benefit from the greater depths.Its just me,I think its pretty obvious Im not much of an advocate of deep sandbeds but appreaciate your insights.In the future Ill refrian from from commenting in dsb threads.

Some short comings as to why and think the OP may want to take into account.

The sugar sand is very difficult to get strong flow without blowing all over the place,reducing the flow and you run risk of hypoxic areas developing hydrogen sulfide(toxic to most marine life)The sugar size according to shimeck is right for spagetti worms that would tend to go deep enough in the substrate.If you use something like carribean argonite the worms self mutilate according to shimeck.The grains have sharp edges and burrowing through it kills itself.These worms are from what Ive read are what make a functional dsb by keeping the lower sediment from going stagnat.

I dont know if arranging the flow in an convective or advective whitch is ever the correct term, would be helpful without the worms .I think the substrate would tend to act more as a mechanical filter like fluidized sand filters do and be prone to clog but Im not sure.

The thought of carbon dosing really scares me with deep sediments.(vinegar ,vodka,sugar.) It basically works by increasing bacterial populations.By using the provided carbon source bacteria assimulate No3 and po4.Basically they use (N)and (P) and the oxygen with it to build the structure(more bacteria).They can then be skimmed out of the aquarium as an export of Nitrate and Phosphate.It would worry me on what would happen with pockets of hydrogen sulfide thrown into the mix.

Just some things to consider is all and wish you the best with what ever you decide.

 

[Newreeflady]

Hi Guys,

Graves, I don't think it's bad that you replied or anything- it's good to have different viewpoints.

I have used this oolitic sand always, in all of my tanks (save one that I tried BB) but at different depths. It blows around at first, but eventually it seems to settle out once there's a bit of biofilm on it. I don't have the magnitude of Gary M. flow, so not too worried about it I read the same thing you do as to worms and too course a substrate- I've decided on oolitic (sugar sized) for this reason- plus I already have it in my other tank, and have some lying around so only need 1 more bag or 2 max.

I've decided against sand-sifting gobies due to them eating the good critters in the sand. What I'm wondering is if sand cukes also are guilty of this, or if they are more consuming biofilm. ?? And, how about hermits- I think they also eat beneficial creatures, so maybe I should limit or omit them as well.

It looks like having a functional dsb can be difficult, but rewarding. I don't mind replenishing the cuc semi-annually. Hopefully it works out.

Not sure on the H2S with carbon dosing. I've never done any carbon dosing. I'm not sure it's necessary with a functional dsb. I don't see much an issue with the vinegar for kalk- it just gets it to dissolve and the byproducts are not detrimental as far as I know. I'm trying to understand your concern with the H2S and acetic acid and ethanol. Are you concerned about a reaction between them, or concerned about too much bacteria with H2S?

Thanks for all of the considerations guys. This has been helpful.
Angela

 

[Gravesj1s]

I think your asking about cucumber worms,if so probably feed on both detritus, bacteria and whatever left over fishfood /wastes are present.

Not 100% but pretty sure dosing kalk with vinegar is still adding the carbon source to fuel bacterial growth.It may or may not be an issue but its not selective and could feed bacteria whitch are without an oxygen supply.So,yes I worry about H2S in that sense.

 

[Newreeflady]

I think your asking about cucumber worms,if so probably feed on both detritus, bacteria and whatever left over fishfood /wastes are present.

Not 100% but pretty sure dosing kalk with vinegar is still adding the carbon source to fuel bacterial growth.It may or may not be an issue but its not selective and could feed bacteria whitch are without an oxygen supply.So,yes I worry about H2S in that sense.

I think a cuke would be good, then. I was worried it might eat sandbed critters like pods- I don't want to add a sand sifter that eats pods. I also won't add my wrasse until the tank is well established with pods and worms.

I know very close to nothing about biology- but, CO2 is also a carbon source and it is present- I think that's what we're mimicing with vinegar. I'll have to bring it up with someone who is bio savvy, because like I said anything I say will be nothing short of speculation.


-A

 

[Gravesj1s]

Biochem involves to much thinking and probably best left for the chemwhiz reefers in randys forum.

My short answer,both (co2 and vinegar)are sources of carbon as you mentioned.Vinegar is organic so bacteria can use it as a food source.

This maybe of interest http://web.archive.org/web/20030418...twork.com/fish2/aqfm/1999/oct/bio/default.asp

 

[tmz]

Gravesj1s,

No problem here , the debate over sand beds is endless,open and useful, your point of view is welcome.Post away but expect friendly counterpoint.As stated earlier, deep in display sand beds are not my first choice any longer ; shallow beds with pools of sand for critters that need them is my preference. Deep sand beds have a place though and are a solid choice for those who want them and are willing to maintain them via periodic incremental removal and replenishment..

Angela,

HS2(hydrogen sulfide),a gas, is formed in anoxic areas when heterotrophic bacteria turn to SO4( sulfate) for energy when oxygen and nitrate are unavailable.Note: there is plenty of sulfate (2700ppm) in seawater.

H2O (water) plus SO4(sulfate) then HS2( hydrogen sufide) and 2S ( sulfur).

The O in HS2 and H2O is used by the bacteria. The extra elemental sufur(S) is not a conern .The HS2, commonly called sewer gas, is toxic to organisms even humans .HS2 once released to oxic areas lasts only a few hours. It reacts with O2 in the water and combines with metals forming sulfide precipitants. Balckish spots on buried rock are probably sulfide deposits for example.

So to the extent that a deep sand bed supports anoxic areas ( very very low flow) and organic carbon is present, HS2 and then sulfides will form with a potential for a release of HS2 at a toxic level along the way. This plus a concern for disturbing benthic fauna are good reasons for not stirring a deep sand bed at least not deeply. It is usually easy to tell if significant amounts of HS2 have been released by the by the unmistakeable smell which will emenate from the water .

CO2 is inorganic carbon and is not useable by heterotrophic organisms (such as the denitrifying bacteria) they need molecules of organic carbon( ie carbon linked to hydrogen). Autotrophic organisms convert inorganic forms of carbon such as CO2 to organic carbon via photosynthesis. Heterotrophs can't.

If at some point you dose extra organic carbon with a deep sand bed there is a potential for excessive organic carbon in the bed. In this case the bacteria will use up all the oxygen, then the nitrate and then go to sulfate. They take what's easiest first oxygen, then nitrate and then sufate. This is an important caveat for those who dose organic carbon in systems with deep beds lest saturation with extra organics results in high levels down deep..
I do dose organic carbon(14 mos) and have some deep sand in my system without issues but it's a matter of balance.
Finer sand has more surface area which is used by bacteria to colonize per volume than coarser stuff. The oolictic as viewed under a microscope in the deep sand buckett thread is also more spherical and less jagged than the coarser media which it is argued makes compaction and clogging less likely.

I have always kept sea cucumbers . I've even had one(Holothuria thomasi)split into two. Some say they are harmful to benthic fauna though. Some don't.

Vinegar is acetic acid generally sold as plain white vinegar in a 5% solution with 95% distilled water..Acetic acid is CH3OOH, Note the H. Other carbon sources used as supplements also contain organic carbon(H and C).80 proof Vodka for example is40% ehtanol (C2H6O) and 60% distilled water. Sugar is C12H22O11.

 

[Newreeflady]

Hey there,

Just to keep it on a technical level, I should mention that I am an organic chemist

That said, my bio knowledge is generally poor:/ So, let me see if I have it right in my mind at this point. With a DSB I will have much more bacteria than the average joe reefer. When I feed in vinegar, I am feeding in a source of food for them. In using this food, they also consume oxygen and thus lower the oxygen level in my aquarium- this is the concern, yes?

The article I've been going with for the kalk thing says:

Dissolving the Kalk powder in the Vinegar first will accomplish several very good things.

...after all the cool Calcium ion chemistry is over, the leftover Acetate ions from the broken-down Vinegar leaves you with free organic Carbon in the water that feeds the bacteria in your tank so that it converts more poisonous Nitrates to NO2 gas (a very good thing).

So, the concern is that the bacteria will run out of NO2 to process, move on to PO4, then to H2S? And, in the meantime use up my O2?

-A

 

[Gravesj1s]

- tmc,

No problem here and I expect and find friendly opposition productive to learning.

My comment on refraining from dsb discussions are generated on past experiences and I think it reflects in my post to much without realizing it until after its posted.

Its almost comical thinking back to how some of the claims were even possible to assume. It was preached Ca/alk didnt have to be supplemented with dsb.
Hey Graves,geez, you didnt use that sand did you?your worms are mutilating themselves.Use the sugar sand from homedepot Graves,Hey Graves dont use the playsand from homedepot its got impurities and metals in it we suspect its from the bucket on the backhoe (lol) .Graves you need to recharge your worm population from IA.$100 2 tlb spoons.You dont have enough detritus(what)?Graves you got add more sand.Graves thats 2 much sand and you could develop anoxic areas.Hey Graves hydrogen sufide is harmless and found with some corals sitting in mucks of itin lagoonal reefs.This list is endless and I have never seen a part of reefkeeping so skewed based on very little evidence if any.Sorta like a ping pong match.I will never have a wrasse or anyother seacreature that requires a deep bed because of it.(lol)

Not to be discouraging Angela just venting and old info ,it just left a bad taste.
Im sure you have come across some of these claims and know better.Wish you all the best.