DSB negatives

anthony812

Member
thank you someone talks about this subject finally. I have a 2 inch sand bed of aragonite and so far(hopefully forever) everything register zero. I see the nitrogen process in the sand . I just think if you have a deeper san bed maybe it might denitrify faster? well my 2 inch sand bed works great
 

jlem

Active Member
I am going to agree with everyone that a DSB with live rock will do a better job converting nitrates than a tank with only live rock and a high bioload. But you need a high enough bioload to utilize both filters to their full capacity to make both absolutely neccesary. Take my tank for example. my rock handles my bioload. Do I want to have a DSB that i don't really like the look of because I may one day decide to get alot more fish and maybe increase my bioload to more than my rock can handle. No I don't and therefore I don't need a DSB. Keep in mind that my opinions were'nt the holy grail and I guess maybe I should have said why I don't use a DSB in my tank. Thanks for all of the inputs
 

adrian

Active Member
Jut to clarify my post, I have plenty of dark spots against my glass, its a form of cyanobacteria and any functioning DSB will have these spots, I also have dark spots of purple, and green. I dont think I have been lucky as far as moving my tanks and others, I just think the proper preperation was done in advance, Im curious what exactly you think would wipe out a tank due to disrupting a DSB? I think it more likely that a cycle would be to blame for wiping out a tank, which is a concern when moving any tank with or without a DSB. The only thing I can think of that would contribute to wiping out a tank would be again hydrogen sulfide, which in fact is present in most DSBs, but not in a large enough quantities to have any adverse affects. The fact is a DSB must be at least 4 inches or there about to create anaerobic zones, so yes only the bottom 2-3 inches is actually usefull in terms of denitrification, but keep in mind that the bacteria that convert ammonia and nitrites thrive in aerobic zones, and therefore the DSB would not work without the top inch of sand, same thing with live rock, aerobic bacteria live on the outter layers of live rock and within oxygenated pores within the live rock, and anaerobic bacteria live in low to no oxygen zones deep within the live rock. The surface area of live rock pound for pound cannot compare to that of sand. Back in the day reefers used to keep tanks with no substrate only live rock, this method is referred to as the Berlin method, then we added live sand, and the depth got deeper and deeper, to the 4" suggested these days, the modified Berlin method, and we now know its possible to keep a thriving reef with little to no live rock relying only on sand for biological filtration. IMO live rock looks good, and provides and great place to mount corals and provide fish with retreats, but sand is a much more effective method for providing bacteria with surface area. Just my opinion of course ;) It would be interesting to know how the amount of live rock vs. live sand compares in the wild <img src="graemlins//yeahright.gif" border="0" alt="[yeahright]" /> Just food for thought ;) HTH
 

sgt__york

Member
in reading the entire thread here.. i've yet to hear one person bring up REFUGIUMS.
The entire point of the discussion, as i take it is NIRATE removal. It happens in an anerobic state - whether below the sand, or deep within the live rock. But what is more efficient, natural and has a higher load capacity?
Seems to me in the nitrate cycle - the bacteria grown to handle ammonia and nitrite is "BEST" handled by bio-ball media. The surface area is more readily available than on Live rock per given volume of mass. In addition, wet/dry systems have an oxygen content of 20ppm - whereas submerged Live rock only has 5-7ppm of oxygen. Now GRANTED - because live rock is better to look at - we all "want" live rock in our tanks. Most choose to abandon the bio-ball usage altogether "because" the live rock can handle the FUNCTION. But it seems to me, the environment of the wet/dry is more apt to handle this funciton.
LIKEWISE - in dealing w/the removal of NITRATES - wouldn't a REFUGIUM using micro- and macro-algae performa a more efficient (and thus higher load) method of handling Nitrates? The algae feed on the nitrates and per volume can handle a higher load. They do not require some of the maintenance or volume of critters working the sand.
I realize there are many WAYS to achieve the same goal. Some are more efficient than others. Some are more aesthetically pleasing or desirable.
But am i wrong in my conclusions that in the nitrate cycle the more efficient methods are wet/dry systems and algae-refugiums?
 

frankl15207

Member
Originally posted by frankl15207:
<strong>
My nitrates were reduced from 8-12 to undetectable with the addition of a refugium and weekly religious 10% water changes (I'm one of those idiots that don't believe that fish should be forced to live for a year in the same water that they urinate in).
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ahhh... so you didn't really READ the whole thread, did you! <img src="graemlins//silly.gif" border="0" alt="[silly]" />
 

sgt__york

Member
lmao.. ur bust'n my buns for 1 word of 1 sentence when the 'context' of my post was clarification of my understanding thus far on the most efficient filter media for converting each phase of the nitrate cycle? lol
And since whendoes 1 word in a long 24+ post thread constitute discussion? LOL The post was about using live sand as a denitrater - the good and the bad - and much has been said in comparison about LIVE ROCK. I'm just wondering, why isn't the next logical solution an algae Refugium INSTEAD of live sand??
For example, in the post you quoted from above - where he mentioned he had a refugium (along with water change) - In the previous paragraph it is stated he was currently ADDING live sand slowly. WHY? If nitrates were untetectable, why "ADD" sand for a purpose that is already being fulfilled? I"m just curious.
Please don't get me wrong - i'm fairly new to all this - and am not trying to come across as I "know" - quite the contrary. I'm asking to LEARN - and gleam off of others research, experience and reading as well. I hope this discussion of "DSB NEGATIVES" and alternatives - leads to algae refugiums and how they compare in their function.
 

broomer5

Active Member
If I had the bucks, like won the lottery and had unlimited funds and free time - I think it would be interesting to run several tanks with near identical bioloads/fish/inverts, and near identical feeding habits.
Each tank having a different biofiltration method.
One tank - DSB only
One tank - live rock only
One tank - DSB and live rock
One tank - shallow sand bed
One tank - refugium only
One tank - protein skimming
I think you see what I'm stating here.
Many many different ways to run a tank - and many variables that come into play regarding exporting excess nutrients and natural forms of nitrate control.
If I could do this ( am I'm sure others that do research have done just that ) I'm sure I could resolve some of these questions in my own mind for myself.
I've run tanks with wet/dry's, with live rock, with CC substrates, with DSB's, with and without protein skimming, some with high water flows, some with what I would consider medium to low water circulation ... and for the most part, all of them did okay.
But each had different loads, feeding levels, cleanup crews, water change routines and each had different nitrate readings over time.
So many of the variables changed - and I had no "control" tank that stayed a relative constant.
Hard to tell what contributes to a lowering of nitrates unless you keep a control tank, OR the ONLY thing ( repeat ONLY thing ) you change is using a DSB - and keeping EVERYTHING ELSE constant.
And I continued to make changes to the tanks as I went along learning and try new techniques.
My point is that for me it was an accumulation of learning, and moving towards a DSB with live rock, putting in a good size algae refugium, learning how to maintain all my water parameters and keeping a lower more balanced bioload - AND a HUGE REDUCTION in my feeding routine - that I believe ALL total contributed to my less than 5ppm nitrate readings I get now. Still trying to get to that zero reading for any extended period of time - just haven't got it figured out yet I suppose.
My tank keeping methods "evolved" as I learned more and read more about nitrate control.
Plus - tanks MATURE and normally become more stable as time goes on.
Taking readings from my 75 a month after setting it up vs. 6 months or a year or more later - I would expect different test results due to the age of the tank.
Presently - in my 75 reef tank - I keep the nitrates down around 5ppm with a 6 inch DSB, 75-100 lbs of live rock, harvesting macro algae from a healthy refugium that also has a 6 inch DSB, extremely light feedings, using RO/DI water for all top offs and saltwater mixing, and doing about 15 gallon water changes every 6 weeks.
I'm pretty sure I could get the nitrates back up if I really overfed this tank each day.
This is just one variable that I could easily change, and would make all the rest of my biofiltration a "moot" point.
Lots of variables - lots of ways to run a tank.
But .... I am still a huge fan and supporter of having a functioning, healthy, deep living sandbed. It along with all the other things I've learned and put into practice ALL contribute to lowering of my tankwater's nitrates.
Not just one thing by itself.
 

jonthefb

Active Member
And it depends on the livestock that you want to stck your tank with. you cant put a bluespot jawfish in a tank with 1/2" of sand or keep a sand sifting star there. to me thsi is a science that isnt fromally addressed at all. WE are the scientists and our experiment is that glass container holding all of hte oceans secrets. We are pioneers in a sense, propagating corals, experimenting with filtration methods, and trying to match water qualities with big moter nature. Being in college and havign a bio major nontheless allow me to look a little more critically at my tank and hopefully some day some one will write a book and tell us exactly how its supposed to be
jon
 

ironreef

Member
some ppl use sandbeds so can can use less LR= more swimming room for fish and branching corals get over a foot tall so to much LR limits there growth. I just got done cutting some corals cuz they are to tall in my 24" tall tank. They are on the bottom also, But I don't like6" of sand either. I have a 6"-7" dsb in my 20g refugium. 3" in my main and only have lr that is 1/2 way up my tank. But full of corals.
 

jlem

Active Member
I hope this thread has helped people see the benefits and the not so beneficial side of DSB's. Lots of times it seems like only one side is brought up. Thanks for all of the great input. This has even been a helpful thread for me and I'm the one who started it.
 

daisy

Member
I am a little surprised that not until the last few additions to the thread did anyone address the space issue -- the DSB and LR take up space. The volume of water decreases. Maybe you all have larger tanks that I do. I have CC now in a 55 gal, and am saving money for a larger tank and want to have DSB and LR, but also want the refugium not only for the added benefits of the refugium's denitrifying properties, but also because it adds water to my system, making the total system that much more stable.
Another thing really important for us to consider is power-outages. Here in NCY, they happen all the time over the summer, in storms, heat. Right now, I have bio-wheels and a protein skimmer, a few inches of CC and a ton of rock that was not so live when I bought it as quite a novice. I wish I had a DSB and LR now as insurance for longer-term outages, just in case.
 
Top