Why don't intermediate depth sand beds work?

[downbeach]

Here's another Shimek article, it's strange how almost every expert in this hobby seems to defer to his research/judgement/opinions...do you really think they're all wrong?

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2003-01/rs/feature/index.php

 

[elegance coral]

Here's another Shimek article, it's strange how almost every expert in this hobby seems to defer to his research/judgement/opinions...do you really think they're all wrong?

I don't think they're wrong. I've been studying nature for more than 40 years. I know they're wrong.

Here's one quick example I'm sure you can relate to.
Shemik says that if you have enough detritivores, detritus won't accumulate in the sand bed. This may seem perfectly logical, even to people that are very very inelegant. If those people do not study nature, that is. To someone that studies nature, this is absurd.

Walk into any forest and look around. You'll see far more vegetation than you will herbivores that feed on it. You'll see far more herbivores than you will carnivores that feed on them. This is true throughout nature. Pound for pound, even the largest animal on the planet (the blue whale) is nothing in relation to the vast amount of krill/zooplankton that it feeds on.

If you have a sand bed, like Shemik describes, that supports hundreds of thousands of detritivores, it is an absolute must for there to be a massive quantity of detritus to support that population. There's simply no way around this fact. All you need to do is look at a Shemik style sand bed and you can see all the rot and filth that's supporting all those detritivores.

You may want to use some caution when labeling someone an "expert" and putting your faith in them. If someone writes a book, or magazine article, that causes hobbyists to spend more money, those making that money may be more likely to publish your material. If you're really good at it, they may even create you a forum on their retail site, so you can continue to spew your nonsense, and make them even more money.

Peace
EC

 

[Gary Majchrzak]

it's important to differentiate from a DSB in a display aquarium and a remote DSB.

one is a litterbox and the other isn't


DETRIVORES HAVE TO POOP TOO!

 

[Gary Majchrzak]

Right now my BB display with 2 remote DSBs seems to be doing better than every other setup I've tried. I should just stick with it.

:thumbsup:

 

[gbru316]

The Ocean's bottom is covered with sand.............Not glass............Maybe Mother Nature has been doing it wrong all these MILLIONS of years? I'll keep the sand bottom, Thank you..........

While you're at it, you might also want to tell her how wrong she is by lighting the oceans with sun, instead of metal halide, t5 or LED.

 

[Gary Majchrzak]

While you're at it, you might also want to tell her how wrong she is by lighting the oceans with sun, instead of metal halide, t5 or LED.

more importantly (and this is what most "ocean model" comparison people miss) comparing closed man made microcosms with open "greater than mesocosms" that were formed by millions of years of evolution and God (depending on your beliefs) might be likened to comparing apples to cloud formations

 

[dixiedog]

more importantly (and this is what most "ocean model" comparison people miss) comparing closed man made microcosms with open "greater than mesocosms" that were formed by millions of years of evolution and God (depending on your beliefs) might be likened to comparing apples to cloud formations

There you go. I was waiting for someone to say it better than I could.

 

[MikeYQM]

Not to mention, with every passing tide, current or storm the oceans sandbed is being stirred, shifted, vacuumed and replaced. We keep animals in a glass box. We do not replicate the ocean & its processes.

 

[Paul B]

This is what's so confusing about this hobby. There seems to be counter theories on so many subjects. Right now my BB display with 2 remote DSBs seems to be doing better than every other setup I've tried. I should just stick with it.

Thats because they all work for 5 or 10 years. If that is all you are looking for it doesn't matter what you do.

 

[Gary Majchrzak]

what is meant by "work"? DSB's are used for different purposes.
if remote deep sandbeds are kept clean they should denitrify indefintely

a DSB in a display aquarium full of critters can easily accumulate a significant amount of detritus (PO4) in 5 years

 

[Paul B]

if remote deep sandbeds are kept clean they should denitrify indefintely

OK, good luck with that.

 

[JPMagyar]

Anyway, over the years I've read numerous times that sand beds either need to be shallow (< 1"), or deep (>3"). My question is why?



Finally, if you look at the "Tank of the Month" writeups,, there are plenty of successful tanks with sandbeds. Why do they work for some but not others?

Lou

Hi Lou,

You already have plenty of great answers and links in this thread, but I figure, what the heck, one more opinion can't hurt


My answer is that the premise of less than 1 or more than 3 is simply false as there are many, many tanks that utilize sand in ranges other than that and plenty of tanks that are bare bottom. Aquarium maintenance is the key, no matter what method you pick. Steve Weast has one of the nicest tanks in the world and uses about 2 inches of sand. Ked L., an early RC TOTM, has a DSB and his tank is full of outrageously beautiful SPS. Both tanks have been running for more than a decade. I run 1 to 2 inches of sand in my tank and it's no slouch of a tank either.

The point is this topic has been hotly debated for years. So much so that some people left RC over the fight, but the truth of the matter is there is simply no one "right way" or even one way that is "better". It just depends on what you prefer.


Not sure that that puts an end to the debate, but hopefully it offers another perspective.


Joe :beer:


My 2 inch sand bed tank . . .

 

[Gary Majchrzak]

OK, good luck with that.

thanks, Paul... but I'm already past the 5 year mark with my RDSB and it "works" (in this case the definition meaning denitrification) just fine :thumbsup:

 

[Gary Majchrzak]

Anyway, over the years I've read numerous times that sand beds either need to be shallow (< 1"), or deep (>3"). My question is why? Wouldn't the supposedly beneficial sandbed fauna that exist at the 1.5" depth in a DSB also exist in an intermediate depth sand bed that is 1.5"?

the short answer to this particular question is that there are very few critters that will do well in a 3" sandbed but NOT do well in a 1.5" sandbed.

I've never heard of the less than 1" or greater than 3" recommendation.

Shimek , Goemans and Calfo always recommended over 4" for a DSB in everything I recall reading. In all practical applications we now know that (like JP already posted) anything can "work" (depending on the definition of the word) and it all depends on maintenance.

Some choices are definitely easier and more beneficial than others.

 

[sak5]

i'm a little confused now. i found ron shimek's web page and it looks like he's still in favor of a dsb. is there another article out there?

 

[Patrick Cox]

Sand is not magic. It's just a pile of crushed up calcium carbonate. It doesn't do tricks, it doesn't clean your tank, it doesn't "work", it just lays there doing pretty much nothing. It doesn't matter how deep or shallow it is. It's still just a pile of calcium carbonate on the bottom of the tank.

Unfortunately, Ron Shemik and his disciples have been brought up in this thread. As if what they say is true, or actually works the way they describe it. It does not.

The only reason these people have not been brought up on animal cruelty charges is because there are no laws protecting fish and invertebrates from acts of cruelty.

Take any "higher" life form, like a dog, put it in a small enclosure, don't clean the bottom of that enclosure, allow its waste to accumulate to the point that is supports hundreds of thousands of worms/insects/poo eaters/"infauna", maybe even buy some fishing worms to boost the biodiversity, and see what happens. Something tells me you wouldn't get very far by telling the judge that you didn't clean up after the dog because you had flies, maggots, worms, and other critters doing if for you. The dog is likely to get sick and eventually die due to the fact that it was forced to live in a small enclosure with its own filth. This is the exact same thing we see over and over and over and over again in systems like Shemik describes.

When hobbyists started noticing that their animals were dying, these people had to come up with some excuse to explain it, other than the truth which would be by saying, "My method is crap. Sorry for your loss." So, they invented "old tank syndrome". There is no such thing as old tank syndrome. It should be called dirty tank syndrome. Clean tanks simply do not have this problem. This problem only arises when we do not clean up after our pets. Like Shemik advises.

For some people, their "belief" in this DSB method is so strong that they'll repeatedly watch their animals die, only to replace them and watch them die all over again. Borenman's personal tank crashed countless times, yet he continued to go right back to the Shemik DSB that caused it in the first place. He even wrote an article about how he disturbed his sand bed and killed all, or most, of his corals. The lesson he learned was to not disturb that six inch pile of rot and filth on the bottom of his tank, because it can kill his corals. That's absurd!!!!:wildone: If I disturb a rattle snake in my living room and get bit, the lesson I learn will not be to tippy toe around the snake so I don't disturb it again. I would remove the snake from my living room so I don't have to worry about disturbing it again. If Borneman would have simply removed the six inch pile of rot and filth from the bottom of his tank, he wouldn't have had to worry about animals dying because he disturbed it.

So basically, we can have sand of what ever depth we like, or what ever depth we think our pets may appreciate. We simply need to keep it clean. We wouldn't force any other animal to live under the conditions of a Shemik DSB system, so why would we do this to some of the most environmentally sensitive organisms on the planet?

Peace
EC

Well said. This makes the most sense to me. Thanks.

 

[keithhays]

While you're at it, you might also want to tell her how wrong she is by lighting the oceans with sun, instead of metal halide, t5 or LED.

Actually, she uses really remote deep sand beds which encompass the vast majority of the oceans, excepting directly under coral reefs.

Her sand beds are a several miles deep in water and a mile or more deep in "sand". Occasionally, deep water swells will bring nutrients near the coral, but it is the exception. Most of the time the water passing over has next to no nutrients and a whole lot of living food. The coral reefs are generally not in close proximity to the DSB'S themselves.

I am not taking a side in this as reality does appear to some extent to take both sides.

 

[MrClam]

First I want to say that I dont really have a dog in this fight as Im still new to the hobby.

But Im confused as to why you wouldnt try to replicate the natural conditions for your organisms as much as possible. Yes, most people use T5 or MH lighting for their systems, but if you lived next to the Great Barrier Reef and had a glass sunroom wouldnt it seem idiocy not to just rely on the natural sun?

I think much of the debate over tank setups comes from the varying perspectives. The ocean is a vast system capable of providing variable conditions. Our systems are more limited. Some people focus on keeping SPS corals, and as such a BB tank fascilitates a low nutrient system. But if you wanted to keep a burrowing shrimp/goby pair it would be cruel not to have sand as these organisms have a natural instinct to dig a cave and would be stressed just sitting on glass.

Just trying to break the tension.

 

[Gary Majchrzak]

I don't see any tension.

In response to the past couple of posts, the ocean doesn't rely on deep sand beds to denitrify or maintain PO4 at low levels.
In fact, the varying salinity of oceanic currents liberate PO4 from substrate.

Incidentally, I try to get as much natural sunlight into my reef aquarium as possible.

 

[Paul B]

thanks, Paul... but I'm already past the 5 year mark with my RDSB and it "works" (in this case the definition meaning denitrification) just fine

Gary, I truely hope your sand bed lasts forever as I never want to see anyone have problems and I have no doubt it is fine after 5 years. I feel that problems with those type of beds come about after ten years as there are not many DSB systems older than that. A few, but not many.