DSB Related Journals, Newspaper Articles, ETC...

[MiddletonMark]

Originally posted by shred5
Just so people on Rc dont get mad... Most of the people on RC are not your average reefer...1 hor on rc and you probably know more than the average..

Are you representatives from elsewhere?
Sure sounds like it IMO.

[Shoestring Reefer]

Please allow me to clarify:

Originally posted by Shoestring Reefer
I agree. There is an absence of concrete evidence on either side. Basically, it's theory vs theory, and experience vs experience.

Pro-DSB theory = It must be the hobbyist's fault.

Con-DSB theory = All the links that have been provided in this thread, and other threads.

Pro-DSB experience = Someone's DSB hasn't caused algae problems.

Con-DSB theory = Someone else's did.

There is an argument on either side; personally, I don't buy the "blame the hobbyist" explanation for every case. Even if it were true, it still shows that it's not a good method for everyone, because the people who had a DSB cause algae problems after 3 years, would have changed their practices way before that time if they didn't have the DSB. So, even if you blame the hobbyist, you are still showing a big problem with DSBs-it hides a problem and allows it to grow until it becomes unmanagable.

Give a reefer a DSB, he'll have a clean tank for a few years. Teach a reefer proper husbandry, he'll have a clean tank forever-without the DSB.

IMO the few relatively long-term successes with DSB show that it can be a successfull way for SOME people to run SOME reeftanks; but based on the number of people who have algae problems, I don't think it should be recommended to the hobby as a whole.

[Bomber]

Originally posted by vitz
it's my belief that most of the PO4 is added to the sb, by our (usually) grossly overfeeding practices

vitz, in order for a DSB to work, it need a high population of critters and those critters need to be fed a lot.

Originally posted by rshimek
One needs to feed a tank a lot.

All of the models used in research are either a aquarium, a bucket, whatever. Doesn't matter, anything that holds water is the same as a aquarium.

Originally posted by shred5
About maybe 12 years ago or so bare bottom was all the rage. Do you know alot of people went from bare bottom tanks to plenum and the dsb to get rid of algae problems because it was supposed to help with nutrients. Hmmm.... sound familiar.

Dave

Dave, the short answer is equipment has changed. Back then no one wanted a 6ft tall air driven skimmer in the living room. Now we have things like beckets.
Almost all people went with sand bed filters of some sort because they did not have the equipment to remove waste before it broke down and caused nitrate problems.
Back then, because people could test for nitrate and nitrate was high when they started having algae problems so nitrate took the blame. Nitrate is simply a sign of high organic waste rotting. No one knew and no one could test for phosphates. So no one knew to blame phosphorous.
All the work on sand beds was done for the sole purpose of reducing nitrates.

Now we know that phosphorous is limiting in marine environments and nitrate is not the big problem we thought it was.

[Shoestring Reefer]

Originally posted by vitz
i've done both sb, and bb, and i think neither are a miracle cure for anything

DSBs were suppose to be the miracle cure. Add 6" of sand, seed the bed with critters, and TA DA: zero nitrates!

The BB method is more than just BB; it's also high flow, wet skimming, using LR low in nutrients from the start, and just using good import/export practices in general.

No one here is saying "all you need is a BB and you're all set". No one has even implied that.

[Shoestring Reefer]

Originally posted by Bomber
Now we know that phosphorous is limiting in marine environments and nitrate is not the big problem we thought it was.

I totally agree and my macro will attest to that.

[shred5]

Originally posted by MiddletonMark
Are you representatives from elsewhere?
Sure sounds like it IMO.

what I dont get you?

Dave

[Bomber]

Originally posted by Shoestring Reefer
Give a reefer a DSB, he'll have a clean tank for a few years. Teach a reefer proper husbandry, he'll have a clean tank forever-without the DSB.

Mike, if I had room in my sig line, this would be there right now.

[Bomber]

Originally posted by Shoestring Reefer
There is an argument on either side; personally, I don't buy the "blame the hobbyist" explanation for every case. Even if it were true, it still shows that it's not a good method for everyone, because the people who had a DSB cause algae problems after 3 years, would have changed their practices way before that time if they didn't have the DSB. So, even if you blame the hobbyist, you are still showing a big problem with DSBs-it hides a problem and allows it to grow until it becomes unmanagable.

and the beat goes on. It seems that even experienced long time aquarists can't manage one either. It's the aquarist, not the methodology.

See this post,
http://archive.reefcentral.com/forum...03#post3217703

Originally posted by Shoestring Reefer
IMO the few relatively long-term successes with DSB show that it can be a successfull way for SOME people to run SOME reeftanks; but based on the number of people who have algae problems, I don't think it should be recommended to the hobby as a whole.

In the process of debating this a while back, someone brought up Rob Toonen's aquarium. When it was looked into, it was discovered that he was keeping mushrooms, leather corals, (something like that anyway) and had low lighting. Anyway, it was all animals that can not only handle high nutrient systems, but prefer it.
For the people that are trying to keep SPS types, that aquarium would have been a disaster.

[Shoestring Reefer]

Originally posted by Bomber
See this post,
http://archive.reefcentral.com/forum...03#post3217703

He's not even talking about nusance algae growth; he's talking about tank crashes. Perhapse that's a safer topic for some .

[Bomber]

Mike here's the poop, so to speak.

Adey is the one that came up with all this and promoted it. Again, it goes back to thinking nitrates were the problem and a total lack of understanding of phosphorous. Also keep in mind, this was devised for extremely large inland aquariums, Adey was working with marine mammals, where it was thought the only way to reduce nitrate prior to this was massive water changes. That was too expensive for these exhibit aquariums.

The theory goes this way - again keep in mind it's all about reducing nitrates, which are really just a sign of organics building up.

You devise a system that allows you to keep those organics that produce nitrates and process them through a series of reductions until it's reduced to nitrogen gas. A better filter, so to speak, one that saves you money.
The second step was to devise a filter that would process the phosphorous compounds that would be stored and as a result leak from the first filter. You need a second filter - algae scrubber - which you then use to harvest algae and export that phosphorous.

Couple that with hobbyists looking for a way to reduce nitrates, because they were told that nitrates were their problem. Adey tried to take a system that works just fine for marine mammals, and adapt it to reef aquarium displays.

Hobby gurus, took that, ran with it, and here you are.

So you have two choices. Remove the waste before it rots and becomes a problem.

Let it sit and rot, and hook up other filters or chemicals to try and deal with what's produced from storing those organics and letting them break down.

Both systems can work. Only thing is, none of Adey's systems did.

[SPC]

Originally posted by shred5
fact is, more people have dsb right now so it more people with dsb have algae problems and most probably dont have one set up right ..

Wow, you guys have been busy .

Hi Dave,

I noticed in a previous post that you said you set up your tank with a 3" DSB. I know you are aware that the DSB experts (Ron and Rob) call for a 4" minimum DSB in their DSB recipe. Which advice do you think the "average hobbyist" should follow?

I am just debating the otherside because I think it possible…

But thats not what the science shows, Dave.

Originally posted by Shoestring Reefer
IMO the few relatively long-term successes with DSB show that it can be a successfull way for SOME people to run SOME reeftanks; but based on the number of people who have algae problems, I don't think it should be recommended to the hobby as a whole.

Did I miss something here, Mike? Which "relatively long term successes with DSB's" are you referring to here?
Steve

[Shoestring Reefer]

Originally posted by SPC
Did I miss something here, Mike? Which "relatively long term successes with DSB's" are you referring to here?
Steve

5+ years, and particularly 8+ years. Here's a link to one of the DSB polls. It demonstrated the difference between impossible and unlikely. And, yes, at least a couple of those 8+ years tanks use some kind of plenum system rather than DSB, but as far as I know the rest of the 8+ tanks don't.

Anyone who has bothered to read what I post knows how I stand, but maby I can sum it up briefly: Long-term DSB success happens so it is possible, but it doesn't happen often so it's unlikely IMO. For that reason, I think that recommending it for everyone is a bad idea. As far as I can tell, a DSB tank is a cheap temporary way to handle nitrates so it's great for low-budget, short term set-ups. People like apartment dwellers and students who will move in a few years may be able to use a DSB and discard it before problems appear, and save a few bucks on equipment and electricity in the meantime. IMO a long-term set up- even a "softie" tank like mine - should be equipped to export nutrients rather than store them in the bed. But if it's a financial decision, you gotta do what you gotta do.

Probably not many people care about what I think because my opinion is not polarized enough, but that's no biggie. In any case (everyone), let's not look for things to argue about for the sake of arguing, especially in a thread that is actually worthwhile.

[shred5]

Hey Steve.


I had 3 + ...I believe 4 is recommended and 3 min.. Mine is not a good example because even with adding sand I have fallen to oh I would say around 2.5" and that is not working...My tank is just to shallow for a dsb.. I went very shallow for max light. I am not against barebottom by any means.. I just think done right sand beds can work and are possibly more benificial for a tank even with some short comming...


I am not one to believe my way is the only way.. esp with out real proof.... I think there is more than one way to keep a reef tank...

added edit :
Oh by the way my dsb was in my rubbermaid fuge and was 5 inches deep... It was recently disconnected because I am going sumpless...No external plumbing for me now.
I live in an apartment and was having low voltage problems and I was frying my sea swirls and pumps... I had to cut back...




Dave

[shred5]

Shoestring Reefer
About a 4 or 5 percent fail rate. Probably triple that drop out of the hobby a year.
Long term success of more than 5 years is going to be hard to find because most systems were set up about 5 years ago or so with the method we used now with fine sand (southdown) ... Before that there were plenum systems which pretty much were tore down because they were a pain... And before that was bare bottom and before that was crushed coral...

That data supports nothing... 8 years ago very few were using the fine oolitic sand. This is a pretty new way of keeping reef tanks.. You have to ask why did bare bottom die out... I understand what bomber is saying about things have changed about nitrate... But to me phosphate has always been the thing to target... Nitrate can be toxic in higher amounts to certain invertebrates and still is a concern….When trying to target algae I think you need to mainly hit phosphate but should also watch nitrates.. To me high nitrates are an indication that something is wrong, like overfeeding and usually go hand in hand with phosphates.

I have tried every method… I have been doing this longer than most .. probably over 15 years with a reef ...
Dave

[Bomber]

Mike, I thought we were all in agreement.

[Shoestring Reefer]

Originally posted by shred5
About a 4 or 5 percent fail rate. Probably triple that drop out of the hobby a year.

You really have to look at the number of votes, not the percentages, on the RC polls. People can make more than one vote. With a little math: there were 414 votes for having a DSB (all of the "successes" + all the "failures"; you can argue about the termanology if you want, but we all know what it means); of those 414 votes, 108 votes were for failure of some kind. That's 26% "failure", and that's including 239 votes (over half of the total) reporting success after 2 years or less, and 62 reporting failure after 2 years or less. Throw out all the "two years or less" votes and it's 41% failure. I say throw out 2 yeare or less because it's not expected that a DSB would have problems yet (throw out the successes because they don't mean anything yet), and the failures may just be the algae stages that we get during tank maturation when starting out whit organically-loaded sand and rock.

I don't see how guessing about dropout rate prooves anything. But why don't you take the post in context; someone asked about the "relatively long term successes with DSB's" and I provided a link to show what I was talking about. Are you trying to argue that those 8+ years of success don't really count?

Originally posted by shred5
Long term success of more than 5 years is going to be hard to find because most systems were set up about 5 years ago or so with the method we used now with fine sand (southdown) ...

That data supports nothing... 8 years ago very few were using the fine oolitic sand. This is a pretty new way of keeping reef tanks..

Yup, that was stated repeatedly in the poll I linked to, by myself and others. But, as stated, it shows that some tanks were reported to have run for 8+ years with a DSB. What makes them different? That would be the next question to ask IMO.

Originally posted by shred5
You have to ask why did bare bottom die out.

So far, EVERY formerly popular method has died out. Do you disagree that BB died out before the introduction of inexpensive high-flow pumps? That's what I hear, but I wouldn't know, personally.

Mini skirts died out, too. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't make a comeback. Perhapse we can agree on that, if little else.

Originally posted by shred5
But to me phosphate has always been the thing to target... Nitrate can be toxic in higher amounts to certain invertebrates and still is a concern….When trying to target algae I think you need to mainly hit phosphate but should also watch nitrates.. To me high nitrates are an indication that something is wrong, like overfeeding and usually go hand in hand with phosphates.

I totally agree, and I'm sure lots of people do. In fact, I've seen it in print, in books that didn't even mention phosphate (maby it wasn't recogized back then) but said nitrate was an indicator of other potential pollutants that we don't/can't test for.

Maby we agree on 2 things?

Originally posted by shred5
I have tried every method… I have been doing this longer than most .. probably over 15 years with a reef ...
Dave

That's longer than I've been reefing (longer than I've been bald, too) so it's good to have you around.

[Shoestring Reefer]

Originally posted by Bomber
Mike, I thought we were all in agreement.

I thought so, too.

What I want to know at this point (and I'll have to start a new thread, probably) is how the few "older" DSB tanks are set up and run. Do they include 125-gallon tanks with 250 lbs of live rock (cooked first), macro export, crazy skimming, and 2 pajama cardinals fed table shrimp once a day? I think that we can all agree a tank like that could have the DSB last a long time; of course, we could all agree that a tank like that wouldn't need the DSB for denitrification, anyway.

[Bomber]

Mike, I can't really figure out that poll, but it looks to me like after 601 votes, only 8 tanks suceeded for those 8 years.
One tank I know of that I'm pretty sure voted - over 8 years - has always had on going algae problems and houses high nutrient soft corals.
Two of the others that probably voted have some sort of other thing, but they call it a DSB.

The rest, I have no idea.

[MiddletonMark]

Originally posted by Shoestring Reefer
Mini skirts died out, too. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't make a comeback. Perhapse we can agree on that, if little else.

Here here!

[shred5]

Mike

Come on that pole is flawed.. Thats like putting a pole up on ahhhh lets say a car.. and ask who has had that car with out problems for more than 5 years. and the car was only made for 5 years. And say the car is crap because no one has had onE with out problems for more than 5 years other than the prototypes...

Fact is what is the number one problem people have with a reef tank?.. algae.. always has been... Some people are going to blame there sand bed even if it is not the problem..


Some you guys are starting to remind me of Ron using flawed data to support your ideas...No offense Mike ....

The reason I brought up the drop out rate is because alot of people dont do this hobby right.. They get in with out knowing what they are doing.. They hear something at the lfs and that what they do.. Alot of people dont want to listen either..So there is error. If you set up the dsb wrong to begin with what are its chances?

If you read my posts I agree on things dieing out.. This hobby is very fad driven... We had high flow pumps back then, also the percentage of large tanks were less back then...... But you want to know why I believe bare bottom died out.. They dont look natural... Sand looks better and is more natural..

Dave

[Bomber]

Originally posted by shred5
Some people are going to blame there sand bed even if it is not the problem..

Not necessarily.

We know that phosphate and phosphorous compounds are limiting in marine environments.

We're going to blame anything that inhibits growth and fosters the growth of nuisance algae by storing and releasing phosphorous compounds.

Until someone can produce just one scientific paper that says marine sediments (sand beds) don't do that, we're sticking to our story.

[shred5]

Bomber .. I know it happens.. I have said it many times? But how much? You still cant answer my original questions you just go round and round.. You sound like a politician.

Dave

[Bomber]

Whoa backup there cowboy.

I did answer your questions. They were just asked by a lot of other people first. Asking you to read the thread, see where all your questions were asked already - plus a whole lot more - is not going round and round - it's me not going round and round again and again.
You're the one sounding like a politician.

[Shoestring Reefer]

Some you guys are starting to remind me of Ron using flawed data to support your ideas...No offense Mike ....Which idea do you think I am supporting with flawed numbers?

I was using that poll to point out that some reefers have used a DSB for over 8 years successfully, but lots of DSBs fail. That was my point. Then you came up with some numbers that didn't jive, so I gave you my take on those numbers.

Bomber pointed out that one of the 8+ years DSBs have algae problems, and I also remember that a couple have plenums, so that leaves us with maby 5 DSBs set up successfully for over 8 years. IMO that shows that success is possible.

I'll break down my point into two components to make it easy, and put each in it's own paragraph with some discussion. I'll put an asterisk before each one:

*Part of my point is that a DSB can be successfull long-term, and that point stands. Do you believe that ZERO DSBs have been successfull for 8+ years?

*The other part of my point is that a lot of them fail. I don't see why having little data beyond 8 years is such a problem. That means you don't have a lot of success OR failure after 8 years in the poll. It doesn't change the failure rate of the younger tanks, and the failures seem to be happening before the 8-year mark. If a DSB fails between the 2-7 year mark, it won't make it to 8 years. If 40% or the DSBs that were started ended up failing, how will waiting a few years drop that failure rate? Do you disagree that many DSBs were reported to fail?

You may not like the age of the tanks in the poll, but at least they are based on reality rather then guess work and mabys. The data is subject to interpretation, but as of now it's the only thing I know of to show actual performance, rather than guess work and theory. I haven't said or implied that few can make it to 8 years, only that few have made it so far. As I interprete the data (just the data), at best 59% will make it to 8 years and 41% won't; but we'll have to wait a few years and see.

Now, after all that hassle, are you in favor of mini skirts?

[Shoestring Reefer]

No, you sound like a politician, and my dog's better than yours.