DSB in refugium?

Fermat · #1 07/10/2007, 05:04 AM

I'm thinking about what to put in my 9 gallon (14 inch tall) fuge. I was considering chaetomorpha with some live rock fragments.

Should I go with a DSB? If so, will I need a plenum? What sort of sand sifters would I require?

If no DSB, is there any advantages to having sand in the refugium?

Be glad to hear what others have in their refugiums and thankful for any suggestions.

Fermat · #2 07/10/2007, 10:24 AM

Bump.

jonbro6956 · #3 07/10/2007, 10:38 AM

I would not do a DSB. Sand takes up water volume. I think that water volume will benefit you more.

Now I really do not know since I have not done a DSB in the refugium, only in my main tank and I did not like it. I ended up taking about 5 inches out of the tank so that I could have the extra water volume.

Sk8r · #4 07/10/2007, 10:45 AM

My 54g has a 20g refugium [over half the sump] with a monster ball of cheato, about 2-3 inches of sand, and a pile of rock rubble, mostly tonga branch: it's working well, and produces amphipods as well as copepods. Get a good HO light for it and things will go better with the cheato. It's a dicey question on a small tank as to whether water volume or biofiltering is a priority: you always want more water, but a potent biofilter, as per more live sand and rock and the oxygenating capacity of the cheato [not to mention food for my mandarin] is preeminent for my own tank, at 54g with a 30g sump. The sand is about 1/3 water, so that counts, and the cheato if compressed would be about 1/3 weed and the rest water---the rock, well, at least it's branch and not solid lumps. Always best to have lots of surface area on the rocks, not just a solid heavy lump. I run my light 20 hours a day, to give the cheato a night, but a lot of light otherwise, and it's brilliant deep green and has doubled its size in the last 2 months.

papagimp · #5 07/10/2007, 11:12 AM

I'd go with a DSB for sure, along with the macro. After all, even though an increase in water volume helps to stabalize a system and gives more room for error, 9 gallons just isn't really that much of an increase. The DSB would probably benefit the tank more, IMO.

bertoni · #6 07/10/2007, 11:53 AM

I don't think that size of DSB is going to be useful, for various reasons, and getting the food from the tank to the DSB can be an issue, as well. There's a link to an article on substrate choices in the sticky note that might help.

papagimp · #7 07/10/2007, 12:40 PM

bertoni, I used a 10g fuge for my heavily stocked 55g and even though the "fuge" itself only held about 5g of water max, the 4" sandbed I had in there made a huge difference. enough of a difference that when I removed the sandbed (don't ask why I chose to do this, bad move) my nitrates and phosphates went from Zero to being maxed out on the little color cards. Did this quickly too.

Fermat · #8 07/10/2007, 01:26 PM

My 35g is even smaller than papa's 55g, so I would think the effect of a 9g DSB might be even more effective?

If I went with the DSB, should I go with the plenum, sand sifters, etc? I've not done a DSB before.

If I went with 2" of sand... Does that provide any filtration/food? Or is it just a place for critters to cozy up in?

bertoni · #9 07/10/2007, 03:25 PM

I don't know how it's possible to separate the effect of a DSB vs other filtration elements, but as far as a live DSB goes, 9g is very small for the long haul. For short periods, it might help, as the infauna reproduce. If more filtration is needed, growing and harvesting a macroalga is usually a lot more effective than a small DSB.

Fermat · #10 07/10/2007, 07:14 PM

Thanks for all the help guys...

earthboy17 · #11 07/11/2007, 02:05 AM

how does a DSB benefit a tank exactly?

I thought it had something to do with anaerobic bacteria taking out nitrates/nitrogen?

But won't that need water circulation to be effective?

Thanks.

aquarius77 · #12 07/11/2007, 02:45 AM

Earthboy17.

No, the deep zones of the sand bed where there is no flow and oxygen is considered the anaerobic areas, and is supposedly where the denitrification takes place.

Fermat,

I would use the sand bed if it were my tank, along with macro and rubble. I think just because its small does not mean it will not be effictive and i think the benefits of having it outweigh any water volume lost.

Fermat · #13 07/11/2007, 09:38 AM

How about using miracle mud as a compromise? Seems that would be a cheap and easy way (no plenum) to get more benefit than just sand, and might provide benefits sooner than a DSB which might take time to get established.

papagimp · #14 07/11/2007, 11:52 AM

No clue on the miracle mud theory, I've heard conflicting arguments on that topic both good and bad, never tried it myself though so nothing to share. One of the other forums, forgive me I can't remember which, had a thread up about using miracle mud, I wanna say it was either generl reefkeeping, advanced, or chemistry forum. One of those three anyways

.

bertoni · #15 07/11/2007, 01:21 PM

I doubt that the sand does more than the mud, or the mud does more than the sand.

Well, that's assuming the sand is fine-grained.

A DSB can help in a number of ways:

http://archive.reefcentral.com/forum...hreadid=803686

There's also Anthony Calfo's "remote DSB", which also gets called a DSB from time to time.