Why don't intermediate depth sand beds work?

LouH

LouH
After I moved my tank last October, I set it up bare bottomed (no sand), and the tank has never looked better in terms of coral health/growth/color. Prior to the move, I had a sand bed that varied in depth from 1" - 3". The variable depth came as a result of adding sand to the display when bare patches of the bottom pane would appear. The flow patterns in my tank always pushed sand from the middle of the tank to the far corners.

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"? I really like sand in my display for asthetic reasons, but my experience tells me that they are a liability. 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
 
Good read here:

http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2003-06/rs/feature/index.php

At first this may seem like a little TMI, but if you understand what he's saying, you will see the importance of having the proper depth, to achieve the necessary, aerobic, anaerobic and anoxic zones necessary for a complete nitrogen cycle. The infauna he dicusses are necessary to keep the sand bed "healty", which is why you should avoid adding any predatory "sand sifting" critters, i.e. gobies, stars, cucumbers, sand dollars, etc.
 
After I moved my tank last October, I set it up bare bottomed (no sand), and the tank has never looked better in terms of coral health/growth/color. Prior to the move, I had a sand bed that varied in depth from 1" - 3". The variable depth came as a result of adding sand to the display when bare patches of the bottom pane would appear. The flow patterns in my tank always pushed sand from the middle of the tank to the far corners.

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"? I really like sand in my display for asthetic reasons, but my experience tells me that they are a liability. 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


Because an intermediate depth bed has all the disadvantages of deep and shallow beds with the benefits of neither.
 
Didn't Dr. Ron eventually refute almost everything he ever said about DSBs? :)

Do you have anything to support this??

I have not heard or read anything that would lead me to believe that his extensive research has been proven wrong, or that he no longer subscribes to the use of a DSB.

There are others who have reported on its use and benefits:

Anthony Calfo:
http://www.wetwebmedia.com/deepsandbeds.htm
Eric Borneman:
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2007-02/eb/index.php
Sara Mavinkurve:
http://www.wetwebmedia.com/MarSubstOptSara.htm
Tom Murphy:
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2008-05/newbie/index.php
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2008-06/newbie/index.php
 
I'm still pro DSB myself, but IIRC yrs ago he more or less turned against DSBs. Maybe I am confusing him for another big reefing name? Could be, my memory isn't the best :)
 
I'm still pro DSB myself, but IIRC yrs ago he more or less turned against DSBs. Maybe I am confusing him for another big reefing name? Could be, my memory isn't the best :)

It's on the home page of his web site, so I don't think that if he had disavowed it, he would have it so prominently displayed.
 
"Controlled"* studies demonstrate that intermediate sand beds reduce unobtanium in the reef aquarium by 47.6% over shallow sand beds and 26.8% over deep sand beds. Hence, it is the preferred sand level of aquarists who don't want tall, skinny, but strangely beautiful blue elves running all over their tank.

*These studies control as much as .03% of the 483,250 variables that might or might not affect unobtanium levels in th reef aquarium.
 
It's on the home page of his web site, so I don't think that if he had disavowed it, he would have it so prominently displayed.

Feel free to disregard what I said, I'm remembering something from the haze of the great sand bed debate that happened around 10 yrs ago. I'm pretty sure there was some controversey involving him changing some of his ideas at one time or another, but I wasn't able to find any links to back up with I'm remembering so either I'm totally wrong, or it's lost in the archives of reefing history.

Otherwise, that study by toonen more or less ended up finding that (given the experimental conditions) there was little difference in the functoning of shallow vs deep, course vs fine, and plenum vs no plenum. Personally I'm a bit skeptical as I suspect that the experiment might not have been run long enough, and might not have addressed some other factors such that it might simply not have had a chance to show the true differences in methodologies. I linked it because it's the only actual experiment of it's kind that I've ever heard of, and it's often refered to when these discussions come up.

Definately not trying to argue a point or push a particular perspective, I was just trying to throw some info and thoughts out there for the OP to chew on and draw their own conclusions.
 
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.
 
I run BB and no sand in sump. 180g sps reef. Don't let the p04 n03 have a place to harbor. You can run DSB all day and don't touch it will crash your tank. Or you can clean it if you like sand look. Personally, why deal with that.? So far not looking back now. Friend also has a bb lagoon no sand at all every things beautiful. Sand is over rated imo.
 
Some say that DSBs inevitably will crash and or turn into cesspools of accumulated waste.

I've been trying for quite a few years to replicate this result and I continue to fail. I guess I'm doing something wrong?
 
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.

It's not really that confusing, it's just Mother Nature's way. She has always believed there is more than one way to skin a cat (appologies to my cat). :twitch: And with so many variables and different kinds of equipment, it extreemly difficult to compare any one system to any other. There are just too many variables.

BTW, I have a 2"-3" sand bed in my 180g DT and I have 98% of the LR raised an inch or two off the sand on eggcrate platforms with pvc legs. I like sand dwelling critters and this gives them more area. I also think it really improves the flow of water near the sand and eliminating dead spots. I also have a 45g DSB and a 45g refugium. Just because 'experts' say one why is better, certainly doesn't mean it's the only way. And the 'experts' opinions have sure changed alot over the last 10-20 years in this hobby. What was the right way to do it even 8 years ago, isn't the best way anymore. The hobby evolves, our knowledge increases and our technology improves, there is no 'right' or 'wrong' there is only 'try' (appologies to Yoda).:strooper:
 
Last edited:
"Controlled"* studies demonstrate that intermediate sand beds reduce unobtanium in the reef aquarium by 47.6% over shallow sand beds and 26.8% over deep sand beds. Hence, it is the preferred sand level of aquarists who don't want tall, skinny, but strangely beautiful blue elves running all over their tank.

*These studies control as much as .03% of the 483,250 variables that might or might not affect unobtanium levels in th reef aquarium.

:lolspin::lmao::lol::lolspin:
 
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:D
EC
 
Last edited:
Sounds like you already know the truth, apparently sand is obsolete :)

Didn't this conversation already happen, sometime around 2005?
 
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..........
 
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..........

What Mother Nature does isn't really all that applicable to the hobby.

No one is saying sand is bad. They are just saying sand without cleaning is.
 
Back
Top