DSB or no DSB?

[Scuba Dog]

I would keep a deep sand bed only in a fuge or sump, anything that you can have a way to shut down a few pumps and close the valves, so that an easy sand change can be aranged....Love the idea of a DSB just scared of one in a display, to many horror stories of them going bad...

[Scuba_Dave]

I have a DSB in my fuge only

[JerseyReef]

Interesting, but I'm not sure how this would combat the problem of certain species dominating the DSB environment. It is Ron and Rob's contention that new species must be introduced to the DSB at regular intervals due to this flux. If the DSB fauna rely mostly on detritus for their nutrition, then how would your method matter in this situation?

It doesn't, well at least I can't prove it does either.
What I've observed is that I have the ability to control specie counts. Increase and decrease them how I see fit. No proof it works, no proof it does.

Another question for now, Mike. Do you believe that a DSB in our tanks can run indefinitely? If so, please explain the principal by which you believe a DSB evacuates itself of detritus and PO4?

I'm not sure if I could answer that, even if I truly believed that any system could run indefinitely. Sure, there's a lot of questions swirling around how can a DSB deal with all of the nutrients that it could potentially gather over time. I'm not sure how it could handle this. The only way is to prevent the problem in the first place.

I don't think there's a single person or expert on this board, whether they like a DSB or not. That can successfully argue that the added bio-diversity that a sand system brings to the closed system is a bad idea or isn't beneficial to the inhabitants of that closed system. What's open for discussion and debate. How can closed system benefit from sand system without fouling it?

[starmanres]

I have been following this thread and I would like to chime in with a couple of questions...

First, GARF is promoting plenums. I am planning my 120 gallon tank and have constructed the plenum to go inside per Leroy's directions.

Second, there has been a thread on RC from a guy who has set up a drain that automatically pulls a quart of low oxygen water from under his substrate every day. I would think that doing this would remove the sand bed’s ability to convert nitrates to zero...

Wouldn't one of these options solve the problems completely? I mean, you get the convenience of a shallow sand bed with the nitrate eating ability of a deep sand bed.

I'm still not convinced on the sand bed drain but if I install it and not use it, I lose nothing but the time I spent constructing the drain.

Not to stir the hornet's nest, but I'm looking for a consensus... Maybe it is not possible.

Thanks,

Robert

[cuongvynguyen]

I've had a DSB for over 3 years and the tank could not have been healthier. I belive the choice of whether you should go with a DSB or not should depend of what you want to end up keeping in your tank. For me, this was the twin spot goby which required a lot of sand and fauna.

I occationally have gray / green areas of build up in the tank but those areas are reduced to nothing over a period of a few weeks throughout the life of the tank. This has never concerned me, and the key was that my DSB is housed in the main display tank, a 200 gallon. Good protein skimming and phosphate iron absorbtion has been key to maintaining its quality.

I have NEVER maintained the DSB throughout its life and it has plenty of life in it. I believe its success should be attributed to my twin spot gobies (2 of them) and 4 queen conchs. They do their job of string up the surface of the DSB. Since I don't have an over population of DSB stripping fauna, the life in the DSB is plentiful.

[Bomber]

Originally posted by cuongvynguyen
I belive the choice of whether you should go with a DSB or not should depend of what you want to end up keeping in your tank.

Well of course it does.

What kinds of corals are you keeping?

[SPC]

Originally posted by JerseyReef
I don't think there's a single person or expert on this board, whether they like a DSB or not. That can successfully argue that the added bio-diversity that a sand system brings to the closed system is a bad idea or isn't beneficial to the inhabitants of that closed system.

Hi Mike,

Well I must disagree here, IMO there's not a single person or expert on this board that could successfully argue that this added bio-dervisty is a benifit to an SPS system.

First of all, what exact species in a DSB are beneficial to an SPS system IYO?

Second, what are the numbers needed of these benificial species in order to be of benifit to an.... lets say an acropora?

Third, if these DSB species are indeed beneficial to an SPS system, then why do the growth rates of stony corals seem to be at least that of a DSB tank?
Steve

[Aged Salt]

Be careful, Steve, you're stepping on my toes Remember, mt p/dsb thingy is 10+yrs. without a problem Bob

[JerseyReef]

Originally posted by SPC
Hi Mike,

Well I must disagree here, IMO there's not a single person or expert on this board that could successfully argue that this added bio-diversity is a benefit to an SPS system.

First of all, what exact species in a DSB are beneficial to an SPS system IYO?

Second, what are the numbers needed of these beneficial species in order to be of benefit to an.... lets say an acropora?

Third, if these DSB species are indeed beneficial to an SPS system, then why do the growth rates of stony corals seem to be at least that of a DSB tank?
Steve

Hi Steve,

I believe you mis-quoted me. I didn't mention an SPS system per se, I mentioned a closed system.

Anyway, any specie that reproduces in a closed system has a benefit to any specie that can unitize the "offspring" (I use that term loosely) of that reproducing specie for nutrients and energy, has a benefit to that closed system. I don't see how you could argue that point and be successful? It's the whole food chain thing.

Originally posted by SPC Second, what are the numbers needed of these beneficial species in order to be of benefit to an.... lets say an acropora?

I don't I could even answer that question without setting off the BS alarms.
There's too many variables to define, but the one thing I do know, we as hobbyists don't even come close in providing the required and proper amount of food (let's use your example acropora) would require to really thrive. Alot of people make the connection with sunlight and health for an acro. Although light is essential, it's not the overall key. Food is, hands down and the proper food. Would it surprise you that acro, for the vast majority of the specie, need non plant material for nutrient and energy? Most plant material is rejected by an acro. Read up on Eric columns on this topic. It's a good read and changed my view point on how I feed my corals.

Originally posted by SPC Third, if these DSB species are indeed beneficial to an SPS system, then why do the growth rates of stony corals seem to be at least that of a DSB tank?

The only plausible answer to that question could be uncontrolled organic PO4 in the system. It's been proved that even low levels of PO4 can stunt an acro growth rate.

[Bomber]

Originally posted by JerseyReef
Anyway, any specie that reproduces in a closed system has a benefit to any specie that can unitize the "offspring" (I use that term loosely) of that reproducing specie for nutrients and energy, has a benefit to that closed system. I don't see how you could argue that point and be successful? It's the whole food chain thing.

You could argue it on the ability of a closed system to support X amount of biomass.

The higher the biomass the more is sacrificed by each individual.

The lower the biomass the higher the support for each individual.

[SPC]

Hi Mike,

Originally posted by JerseyReef
Hi Steve,

I believe you mis-quoted me. I didn't mention an SPS system per se, I mentioned a closed system.

I know, but I was trying to narrow down what kind of system we were discussing as I feel that it makes a difference. The amount of organics found in a lagoonal area is quite different from that found on the reef crest etc...

Anyway, any specie that reproduces in a closed system has a benefit to any specie that can unitize the "offspring" (I use that term loosely) of that reproducing specie for nutrients and energy, has a benefit to that closed system. I don't see how you could argue that point and be successful? It's the whole food chain thing.

Well the "whole food chain thing" does work well in nature, but of course we are discussing a closed system. Here is an example, my 6" flower anemone spawned a couple of weeks ago. The first thought that comes to most peoples minds is "wow, that is so natural." The actual result of this in my closed system was anything but "natural" as the water in the system clouded up and stayed that way for many hours. In nature I would imagine this spawn is taken care of fairly quickly, but in my closed system it was only pollution.


I don't I could even answer that question without setting off the BS alarms.
There's too many variables to define, but the one thing I do know, we as hobbyists don't even come close in providing the required and proper amount of food (let's use your example acropora) would require to really thrive.

How can this be though , Mike? If we weren't "supplying the required and proper food" wouldn't we see it in our animals health?

Alot of people make the connection with sunlight and health for an acro. Although light is essential, it's not the overall key. Food is, hands down and the proper food.

I agree that an outside food source may be of some imporatance, but disagree on what that food source can be. First of all IMO an SPS coral is not very efficient at live food capture (what might be found coming from a DSB). BTW, this is why I was curious earlier if we actually knew which DSB organisms produce larvae that lives in the water column, are there any? What species? How many?. Second an SPS coral can find all of the protein it needs in plain detritus. Third, an SPS coral is actually capable of farming its own bacterial food and does so. With this in mind one might question why an SPS coral has developed this ability if food in the form of micro organisms is so important to their well being.

Would it surprise you that acro, for the vast majority of the specie, need non plant material for nutrient and energy?

No it wouldn't suprise me a bit, in fact it shouldn't suprise anyone that uses some common sense. If an acro needed plant material, then all they would need to do is look for it within their own bodies. IMO the best food for an acro is good old detritus.

Most plant material is rejected by an acro. Read up on Eric columns on this topic. It's a good read and changed my view point on how I feed my corals.

Are you talking about Eric's articles dealing with how we are starving our corals? If this is the one you are referring to then I disagree with the whole premise of it. Eric and Ron base their beliefs on this subject on a study that was conducted showing how much "food" reaches the reef from outside sources. It is my understanding that this study was not performed correctly and in fact, this "food" was being produced by the reef itself and was being carried away from it.

The only plausible answer to that question could be uncontrolled organic PO4 in the system. It's been proved that even low levels of PO4 can stunt an acro growth rate.

Exactly, and where does this PO4 come from? If an acro in nature is not subjected to these kinds of levels of PO4, then shouldn't we be trying to duplicate this in our systems? How does increasing the number of living animals in our system help in reducing PO4 numbers?

Lets take a DSB for example . As you have already stated a DSB can host large numbers of various organisms. I think you would also agree with me that these organisms produce PO4. This being the case, then why would someone want to add these organisms to their SPS tank? The obvious answer would be that they are benificial because they feed our corals, but then the question arises again, just how benificial are they? If SPS corals flourish just fine in a BB tank, then I must question the logic that says these organisms are benificial in our closed systems.

One more thing on this PO4 subject. It is widely agreed upon by the experts on this board that a DSB will indeed store PO4 if allowed to, the only point of controversy is if, or how the PO4 is released ( I believe it is through bacterial action FWIW). Reefers such as Aged Salt have found that routine (at least once/week) maintenance on their DSB is the key to keeping it from storing detritus and the resultant PO4. Dr Ron of course would disagree strongly with Bob's approach as he would feel that this stirring of the DSB, and removal of the detritus will harm the organisms. I also must guess that someone who believes the DSB organisms are somehow benificial to the well being of their corals would not want to hurt the DSB animal population. So, in order to keep a thriving DSB animal community one must not disturb the sand through stirring or vacuuming it.
Steve

[Shoestring Reefer]

Other than not being able to keep certain burrowing organisms like jawfish and gobies, what are the disadvantages to NOT having a DSB?

[SPC]

Originally posted by Aged Salt
Be careful, Steve, you're stepping on my toes Remember, mt p/dsb thingy is 10+yrs. without a problem Bob

Believe me Bob, I remember, and I hope that darn thingy goes on for another 10 years!

BTW, I decided to go with a Beckett.
Steve

[Aged Salt]

Bob

[Bomber]

that this stirring of the DSB, and removal of the detritus will harm the organisms.

I have what is probably a silly question.

If they are that delicate how do you package them, ship them 1/2 way around the world?

[cuongvynguyen]

Originally posted by Bomber
Well of course it does.

What kinds of corals are you keeping?

Hi currenly my tank is dominated by soft corals, but I've introduced 2 SPS colonies and plan on upgrading my actinics to VHO before adding more SPS. The two colonies introduced are doing well, grown over 2 inches the last 4 months. Recent pictures are available in my gallery.

[Aged Salt]

Bomber, good point Plain & simple, a dsb needs regular maintenance, not colony counts, benthic organisms or microscopes Bob

[Bomber]

I just don't see how stirring the sand is going to kill all these things when they ship live sand (with them in it) all over the world.

[kwjones]

Bomber,

A lot of the pods and other critters/bacteria people want in their sand beds come from live rock right (going on the assumption that people use LR to seed their sand beds)? A LOT of places ship live rock from the other side of the world, wrapped in nothing but damp newspapers, and yet, we still end up with all this "life" in our systems. On top of that, one would think that the curing process alone would kill most of this stuff when the ammonia and nitrites spike.... I have some aquacultured rock, and I still have some nice looking orange colored encrusting sponges, and from what I've read, they should be dead instead of growing in my water parameters. *GASP* They've even been exposed to air for short periods of time...they should be dead right?

Ok...enough of my sarcasm.

If your common sense was money, could I borrow $50? I can't believe some of the points you make never cross my mind before...

[Bomber]

KW

I know the guys down here culture live sand with all the worms and bugs in it. Take a shovel and load it in bags. Pack it up. And ship it all over the world.
If all that bumping and grinding doesn't kill them, how in this world will stirring the sand kill them?

[Paul B]

How are you doing Bob? I am going collecting today and hopefully will bring back a gallon or so of the creatures most people want in their DSB. As you know I don't have one but the stuff benefits all kinds of substrates anyway. Someone should ship this stuff to inland aquarists so they could get the advantage of fresh bacteria/amphipods/copepods. I am sure the stuff that initially comes from live rock and sand loses diversity over the years. About harming the organisims by stirring the sand, I know that the amphipods anyway live after going through powerheads with no problem, Hell, I think they enjoy it.

[Aged Salt]

Hi Paul, thnx. for asking. With my new tank, I've moved my olde p/dsb system to the back. Took several FB players to accomplish same--you can image with p/dsb >6",Bob

[SPC]

Originally posted by kwjones
Bomber,

A lot of the pods and other critters/bacteria people want in their sand beds come from live rock right (going on the assumption that people use LR to seed their sand beds)?

According to the DSB experts, kwjones, most of the organisms found on L/R are not the same as what is in a sand bed. Dr Ron has said many times that sand bed critters are sand specific.

Originally posted by Bomber
I have what is probably a silly question.

If they are that delicate how do you package them, ship them 1/2 way around the world?

I think part of this is that the stirring will mess up their environment (homes) and they will become homeless, or something like that . Anyone out there that took the DSB class care to help out with this?
Steve

[kwjones]

Ok, not that it matters, but now I'm confused...

Was told to dump in the southdown and add LR. The LR would turn the southdown into Live Sand. So obviously, the reason my sand bed isn't working is because I did it wrong...

So, in a few weeks/months depending on my wife's mood, I'm going to be evicting lots of organisms in my sand because of a re-zoning order. Do I have to give them 90 days notice, or just tell them that I forclosed on their home? I figure I'm being kinda nice by helping them pack up and move out, but after that, they're on their own.

[Shoestring Reefer]

It will be live sand in the sense that it is colonized by bacteria. I missed the part about your DSB not working-why do you think that?