Deep Sand Bed Produces Toxic Gas??

dynagirl

Member
I am planning on removing my crushed coral and replacing it with a deep sand bed. However yesterday I came across several books that warned not to use a deep sand bed without an undergravel filter because "without a constant flow through a filter bed, the substrate favors the growth of anaerobic bacteria, producing toxic gases such as methane and hydroen sulfide". I thought the anaerobic bacteria were beneficial to reduce nitrites and such.
Any comments?
 
T

thomas712

Guest
Sand and an Under gravel filter? ridiculus! How old are these books?
 

turningtim

Active Member
A DSB does work! I had one in my 50 for quite a while but as stated in the link, I had a cyno problem that would not go away. The other thing I didn't like was it took a lot of room in the tank. With only 20" or so of height, when you put 5" of sand in there it takes to much space in the tank. I dropped down to 2" and cyno went away. I still see nitro bubbles in the bed and still have lots O critters in there. Yes my trates aren't 0 anymore but with 10% WCs they stay under 10. I guess I just prefer more room for my fish and the trates are managable. I don't have a fuge yet but when I do get one on there I'm sure I'll show 0's again.
I think as long as you maintain a DSB they will be fine. You need sandsifters and worms,pods to move through the sand and keep it stired up so things don't build and blow up the tank. Every now and then I would gently stir sections to release some of the gases, Never saw a build up of sulfide or anything bad.
HTH
Tim
 

turningtim

Active Member
Originally Posted by Thomas712
Sand and an Under gravel filter? ridiculus! How old are these books?
Jeez Thomas that went right over my head!
:hilarious
 

dynagirl

Member
Would I be better off keeping the crushed coral and using the siphon to clean it when I do water changes?
 

dynagirl

Member
Originally Posted by Thomas712
Sand and an Under gravel filter? ridiculus! How old are these books?
They are current and for sale now at a national book store chain.
 

pfitz44

Active Member
Originally Posted by dynagirl
Would I be better off keeping the crushed coral and using the siphon to clean it when I do water changes?
Aboslutly NOT
Definitly put sand in. IF your worried about the gasses, then only put in like 2" of sand
 

turningtim

Active Member
I wouldn't advise anyone to keep CC, but thats JMO. The problem that I see is that with LR there is no way to keep it clean. Yes you can vacuum what you can get to but you'll never get all of it. Beside sand is much better looking and has more advantages even at a shallow depth.
I have something that Thomas wrote on the subject, I just have to find it and post. Or maybe he'll beat me to it!

Thomas we always end up meeting in these threads?

Tim
 

stanlalee

Active Member
Originally Posted by Thomas712
Sand and an Under gravel filter? ridiculus! How old are these books?

even if they were 20 years old did sand just start clogging up powerheads and falling thru undergravel filters in recent years? :thinking:
 

turningtim

Active Member
Lets see if this works
Nope!
Here it is! This is Thomas'
Most of us will not use crushed coral because it is a large substrate that traps the fish waste and uneaten food that has to be vacuumed before it creates nitrates, which it will anyway. Crushed coral does not provide a very good biological zone, and many tanks are setup with CC from the get go through lack of knowledge or because it is the only substrate that an LFS sells and tells you that it is all you need, using a selling point of CC has buffering power. I have personally battled nitrates over 100 ppm during my days of CC and UGF doing frequent large water changes. So many of us have been there and had high nitrates, did a water change to lower them and they were back in a couple of days. CC has sharp edges, which is undesirable for inverts, like anemones walking around, pods or worms. No getting around it CC is high maintenance and can lead to poor water quality, frequent maintenance, sick livestock, algae blooms and more.
Sand on the other hand has more benefits. These include having far more surface area thereby making it able to handle a higher bio load of bacteria. It is less dangerous to your infauna and has a more natural look in the tank. If going with a DSB Deep Sand Bed you can have other benefits as well like finishing the denitrification or providing sand sifting, burrowing, or tunneling fish and critters a place to play. The denitrification process predominantly occurs in deeper substrates and in areas of stagnant flow where oxygen levels are depressed. And this is why deep sand beds are effective as a nitrogen export mechanism. As water slowly diffuses deeper, aerobic organisms strip all available oxygen for respiration. In the deep, oxygen-deprived layers, denitrifying anaerobes are given the opportunity to convert nitrogen compounds into nitrogenous gases, which escape via tiny bubble out of the aquarium. I believe this process can also work on a limited basis in shallow sand beds. My sand bed is no more than 2 inches deep in some spots.
As to the mixing of live sand and crushed coral. Doing so would be a mistake. First off the CC would rise to the top and the sand would push to the bottom, eventually all you would see is the crushed coral on top. This CC would then still trap detritus and need to be vaccumed, and you would just be sucking up some sand with it everytime you did it. The sandbed under the CC might not function correctly or build up anoxic regions and if you broke into those areas with your syphon you could have a crash of the tank. The water flow would not reach the sand corectly sending it the nutrients it needed to process it. Instead the nutrients would fall on top of it through the crushed coral where it would stagnate until you vaccumed it.
The idea with sand and good water flow is that larger particles of detritus would stay in the water column where the mechanical filtration would remove it, and the dissolved particles would flow into the sandbed where the infauna can process it into smaller peices and the sand bed can process it into a harmless gas that escapes the tank.
 
T

thomas712

Guest
I couldn't have said it better myself. And here is a bit more if you like.
This is my standard answer to the Undergravel filter:
As for undergravel filters, I've been through this, won't go through it again. Why?
1. Frequent water changes to try to get the ditrus and nitrates out.
2. If you put live rock on it you will build up more dead ditrus spots that will pump out more nitrates in you system. This just makes them simply non reef compatible. They were meant for a crushed coral bottom and are no good with sand.
3. You run the risk of Carbon dioxide poisoning that builds up underneath.
4. Although it can help with the bioload it is only low bio load friendly.
5. With what can seep out from underneath the algea blooms can be spectacular leading to what is called New Tank Syndrome even if you think your tank is seasoned, and if you do not vaccum well you will simply reintroduce the waste back into the water colum. This can reek havoc on your water chemistry and your PH.
6. Even though you use the best strongest powerheads on it, it will just pull the waste and ditrus down into the substrate traping it till it decays and fouls your water or waits to be removed by you and the vaccum tube. Much better to use sand and good water flow to keep the ditrus in suspension in the water to be removed by the protein skimmer or machanical filtraition.
7. No matter how you slice it the UGF is just a detrius trap. If anything deserves the name nitrate factory it is the UGF.
Just my OPINION.
Thomas
 

stanlalee

Active Member

Originally Posted by TurningTim
has to be vacuumed before it creates nitrates, which it will anyway
.
disagree completely about the "it will anyway" part. If that were true mine wouldn't be zero.
Originally Posted by TurningTim
Crushed coral does not provide a very good biological zone.
what exactly does that mean? a TV thats "not every good" will have a poor picture, a heater thats not very good wont heat or work consistantly. I have crush coral with everything working in perfect harmony and am not the only one. Zero everything, perfect alk, calcium and stable 8.0pH and no livestock losses. Cheap seaclone skimmer and minimal liverock (1lb per gallon). That should be impossible with something that biologically works "not very good". At worse that may make it not as good as sand but "not very good" is relative.
Originally Posted by TurningTim

I have personally battled nitrates over 100 ppm during my days of CC and UGF doing frequent large water changes.
While underground filters do suck and trap detritus I had underground filter, no skimmer, crush coral, a full size bicolor angel, clownfish, damsel, LM blenny and only one fire shrimp, sallylightfoot and two hermits as a clean up crew in a smallish 30 gallon and NEVER vacuumed in a FOWLR set up and never saw nitrates any higher than 40ppm with regular once a month water changes (albeit large 33%). One mans experience in this hobby means next to nothing (mine included). I've never had the so called algae bloom thats suppose to occur during/after the cycle. Never had cyno not even once in 10years of off and on even back in the days when I didn't do water changes. When underground filters and CC was the norm do you believe everybody with a tank had 100ppm nitrate problems?
Originally Posted by TurningTim

No getting around it CC is high maintenance and can lead to poor water quality, frequent maintenance, sick livestock, algae blooms and more.
since when is jabbing the siphon into the substrate during water changes equate to high and frequent maintenence? Takes the same amount of time as any water change with a siphon. Lots of things can lead to poor water quality, algae blooms and sick livestock crush coral being the least of those.
I dont dispute the benefits of sand but alot of that about crush coral is trumped up and I dont care WHO wrote it short of God himself.
 
T

thomas712

Guest
And that's fine, because there is always someone that had no problem with crushed coral or a UGF, I know I did, and I know many others did as well. All depends on your method of maintenance, perhaps the water in your area was better, feeding habits better, crushed coral wasn't as deep, who knows.

I'm glad it worked for you as it has for some others, most don't find it so easy though.
What may have been routine and simple for you may be high maintenance for other though. When push comes to shove on sand vs. crushed coral, I admit in my case the maintenance involved with crushed coral was more than with sand, and I would call it high maintenance myself, but that's just my opinion, hope you can respect it as I do yours.
I use, promote, and talk up sand while I downgrade crushed coral, but everyone's side of the coin is different, and everyone is entitled to state their side.
No worries

Thomas
 

turningtim

Active Member
Stan, I'm glad that it works for you but you are not in the norm and how you can not see the differnce in placeing a hose in a tank to siphon rather than disrupt the substrate while vacuuming just doesn't make sence IMO.
You're right when CC and UGFs were the norm I'm sure folks keep their tanks in fine shape but with a greater amount of maintenance. And I would have to bet with the advent of different techniques of today we (as hobbists) can keep a larger varied asstortment of things that several years ago we could not.
How did UGFs get clogged and hold waste/detrius? The CC allowed this stuff to pass through it. So, that is to say that the CC w/o UGF will hold and still let the waste get into it. As I stated before you can keep CC but to must maintain it and there is no way to remove all of the waste b/c you can not vacuum the entire substrate w/o moving everything in the tank.
I kept Rift lake tanks up and running for 5-10 years and always would see a steady rise in trates. Yes I vacuumed and kept things as clean as possible. A tank never blew up and I didn't have any loss of life due to the CC. But when It came time to take down the tank the amount of junk still in the CC was unreal.
I firmly beleive in starting tank with as little questions as possible. So, if you do have issues certain things can be ruled out. This is my opinion on the substrate debate. CC does and will trap waste, there is no arguement there. If there was you would not vacuum it! Sand does not!
I also beleive that a new hobbists has enough to worry about with out the added possibility that waste is collecting in the substarte waiting to become an issue. The plan and simply reason CC gets a bad rap is that it does what we say it does and if you don't keep on top of it, it will cause problems.
You have done your work on your tank and have great results and if someone choses to go that route then good for them. I have seen CC good bad more than once and this is my experience.
There are no advantages that CC has over sand! If you're just starting out why go with a less than ideal substrate?
This is just my opinion and experience!
Tim
 

mikeyjer

Active Member
Here's my opinion of this whole thing. I keep CC in my aggressive tank, only 2 fish in there. When the CC was around 4" deep, it created a lot of problem with nitrates. I lowered it to around 1-2" deep, that took care of the problem there. I keep sand in my reef tank with around 2-3" and I have nitrogen gas coming out of it, you don't need a super deep sandbed for that to happen, there was a discussion on this topic awhile back, search on it and you'll see what I mean. I haven't seen nitrate in my tank forever! I recently added sump/fuge system, I probably would never see trates again....Now if I can only get my new skimmer to work in the return, if it doesn't, I'll just put my remora back on.... :happyfish
 

celacanthr

Active Member
The harmful chemicals that the book is speaking about is probably ammonium. It is not harmful in the way that ammonia is, but it will cause soem excess algae growth.
The books could also be talking about some truly harmful chemicals that actually enter the tank from tap water, and are not caused by the DSB. In fact, the DSB actually renders a certain amount of these chemicals harmless because through natural processes, these chemicals are brought to the lowest layers of the DSB, where they cannot harm anything.
The only way that these chemicals would be released is if you started to "stir" the sand bed, which is definantly a bad idea. This is not to say that sand stirring creatures* are a bad idea, in fact they are absolutely necessary for a DSB to work properly.
HTH

* The best sand stirrers IMO are the
Nassarius vibex snails. DO NOT get the sand sifting star, unless you have a relatively large tank, with an aged DSB.
 

stanlalee

Active Member
Originally Posted by TurningTim
There are no advantages that CC has over sand! If you're just starting out why go with a less than ideal substrate?
This is just my opinion and experience!
Tim

Thats not the point I was trying to make. I believe sand is better I just dont believe CC is as bad as its made out to be.
For example person with sand had nitrate problem you'll here bioload too high, not enough water changes, inadequate filtration ect. Same tank with CC automatically the answer is change the CC when it could very well be if the other variables were addressed perhaps they would solve the problem witout a substrate change. And I dont advocate underground filters, I agree with everything said about them, I just made reference that I had one too in the past without "major" nitrate problems.
 

27mtaylor

Member
Stanlalee, I have a question for you. I use CC in my tank. I have reduced it to 1" or less to try to reduce my nitrates. Currently my readings stay around 15 ppm. Do you use the CC that is about the size of a dime (or a little bigger) or do you have the stuff that is crushed up a lot finer? I'm trying to avoid going to sand, but I'm running out of options. I'm about to add an additional 30 pounds of live rock and that should give me a total of about 50+ pounds in my 46 gallon tank. Do you think this will help lower them any? Thanks!
 

murph

Active Member
The rest of the debate is quite interesting and I file that in the NRkS folder (nobody really knows for sure)
And know for my IDRKFS opinion (I don't really know for sure). Use a shallow sand bed in your main tank and a DSBin your fuge. Hydrogen sulfide build up in a DSB will be apparent with black pockets becoming visible just under the top layer of the sand bed.
With the fuge being a remote sand bed,if a crash is suspected with the appearance of these black pockets, bypass the plumbing going through your fuge and clean the fuges sand bed and no harm or foul done to your DT.
 
Top