DSB vs. no DSB?

[Jamesurq]

Originally posted by Bomber
Don't pay attention to this "dispersed" flow mess. If you have enough flow across the bottom to move particulate detritus to the overflow and skimmer to remove it, you can't have sand.
If you don't have enough flow across the sand bed to remove particulate detritus, you can't keep particulate detritus from settling on the sand bed.

Crap. Simply put.

Would you say that 4800 GPH of flow in a 90 gallon tank is enough for a barebottom? 53X turnover...

The fact that I have it split between 3 1" outlets and 3 3/4" outlets makes the flow "dispersed" and therefore it doesn't blow the sand around.

But I think the point here is that with a sandbed a moderate amount of particulate detritus settling isn't such a bad thing. When joe snail moves on by and pushes it back up into the water column all is well again...

You're just not ever, ever, ever going to convince me that a sandbed is bad. I think barebottom is a fine way to go and it probably works great if you do it right. Just like I think sandbeds work well - if you do it right....

Stock the sand regularly.... And it doesn't have to cost you an arm and a leg to do it.

[SPasse]

Areze,

I you are asking me if you want to keep large sand sifters and a DSB I would recommend against this, if the intent of this DSB is to be a “nutrient processor�.

I personally started experimenting with various versions of sand beds in around 1992. So I guess not all people who are willing to accept DSBs for what they are, are neophytes.

I have also experimented with various combinations of algae filters and mud beds, as adjunct (out of the main tank) filtration methods.

DSBs can be viable additions to a system, but mismanaged cause more harm than good.

My next SPS tank will probably be a combination of a bare-bottomed main tank with a mud bed & algae combination auxiliary filter.

Still, I wouldn’t talk anyone out of a DSB, just try to educate them on the finer points of getting one set up and maintained.

Regards,

Scott

[Mike O'Brien]

Originally posted by Jamesurq
Crap. Simply put.

Would you say that 4800 GPH of flow in a 90 gallon tank is enough for a barebottom? 53X turnover...

No I'd say it's not nearly enough. Just the fact that you're sand is still there proves it. Maybe set up differently you'd have a chance, but I doubt it.

Have you heard of eductors ?

[Bomber]

Originally posted by Jamesurq
You're just not ever, ever, ever going to convince me that a sandbed is bad. I think barebottom is a fine way to go and it probably works great if you do it right. Just like I think sandbeds work well - if you do it right....

For some very strange reason, people that like sand beds do not want to discuss how those sand beds work, and discussing how they work for some very strange reason comes across to them as saying sand beds are bad.

All marine sediments work, all marine sediments work the same way.

There is nothing bad about how they work. But they work in aquariums like they work in lagoons, bays, etc where you have limited exchange.
Those areas are not devoid of life by any means. You can have beautiful aquariums setup to house animals that you would find in those environments.
Also there are a lot of animals that hobbyists keep that you would not find in those environments.
SPS type corals in particular.

It's not bad to discuss 'how' sand beds work.

I'm not trying to talk anyone out of one way or the other. I could care less. For one thing, the pet industry would not stay in business if everyone kept everything alive.

I am talking about sand beds in closed systems, how they work, and the fact that "I" personally think recommending a sand bed to house "all" animals that hobbyists keep in aquariums is wrong.

There is a reason that hobbyists had to invent the "coral diseases" RTN, STN, etc. Because only hobbyists were keeping them in systems that caused those "diseases".

[pnosko]

Originally posted by Jamesurq
You're just not ever, ever, ever going to convince me that a sandbed is bad. I think barebottom is a fine way to go and it probably works great if you do it right. Just like I think sandbeds work well - if you do it right....

Stock the sand regularly.... And it doesn't have to cost you an arm and a leg to do it.

Well, I could be convinced they were bad if the convincing had some scientific merit, but I've seen very little scientific merit in the conversations from the DSB haters.

I've yet to see a bare-bottom tank with an ounce of wow-factor. But that's a personal preference; they just don't appeal to me.

Given proper care (which is minimal effort and some $$s), proper choice of livestock, and the appropriate-sized tank, I stand by everything you said, James. I think the bigger problem that remains (including discussion in this thread) is using the term DSB accurately. They must consist of the proper grain size distribution and depth. I think the former was a problem with your last grand sand swap too.

[pnosko]

Originally posted by Bomber
"I" personally think recommending a sand bed to house "all" animals that hobbyists keep in aquariums is wrong.

Agreed 100%. But which knowledgeable folks here are making this recommendation?

[Bomber]

Originally posted by pnosko
Well, I could be convinced they were bad if the convincing had some scientific merit, but I've seen very little scientific merit in the conversations from the DSB haters.

I yet to see one single post of any scientific papers, anything even scribbled on a napkin, for the BB haters to prove that anything that's been said about sand beds is wrong.

There isn't any.

I do see a lot of people posting and calling people "DSB haters" and stuff though.

[Bomber]

Originally posted by pnosko
Agreed 100%. But which knowledgeable folks here are making this recommendation?

Originally posted by Bomber
Those areas are not devoid of life by any means. You can have beautiful aquariums setup to house animals that you would find in those environments.

You guys are too funny. The more you post things like "BB are ugly", "DSB haters", "which knowledgeable folks", and on and on

the more the rest of us are going to keep laughing and posting.

[pnosko]

Originally posted by Bomber
"I" personally think recommending a sand bed to house "all" animals that hobbyists keep in aquariums is wrong.

Could you just show where knowledgeable folks are doing this?

[Bomber]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Bomber
"I" personally think recommending a sand bed to house "all" animals that hobbyists keep in aquariums is wrong.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by pnosko
Could you just show where knowledgeable folks are doing this?

Better yet Pete, show me where they are not.

Where are people recommending BB for SPS, sand beds for softies, etc.?

and where is that scientific proof from you that sand beds do not do everything we have said they do?

[Weatherman]

Originally posted by pnosko
Could you just show where knowledgeable folks are doing this?

How about this quote from one of our experts:

"Me persionally - and you did ask, btw - I'd never run another bare bottomed reef in my life."

http://archive.reefcentral.com/forum...38#post5452338

I don't think he intends to keep only soft coral for the rest of his life.

[areze]

back on topic kinda. maybe you can clear this last bit up SPasse.

somone keeping a gobie or sand sifting star or whatever. what do they have typicly? just sand? the fish would eat the stuff out of it that makes it a "dsb" right? so you have to supplement it with a refugium? and then do you really have a DSB anyway? since you have about as much life as a BB with a refugium.

[SPasse]

Areze,

An interesting question; This would involve calculating the "Size" of the sand bed that would be necessary to host a native fauna sufficient to keep you gobies, sand sifting stars etc. fed.

This probably means a very small population of the creatures that feed on that part of the DSB fauna that makes it work. In smaller tanks, that small number would effectively be zero.

From my personal perspective, I was particularly interested in LPS and SPS corals and these were supplemented by the free swimming forms of the critters that took up residence in my DSBs & mud bed/algae filters. In that environment, large sand sifters would be considered a pest. There were enough "surplus" critters that came out of the sand and on to the live rock to keep a mandarin goby happy.

So if your goal is to host gobies, sand sifting stars etc. the sand bed should be thought of as an accommodation for these critters, not as a DSB as a nutrient processor.

I believe Dr. Ron could also provide some additional insight into the "high order" (large) critter load factor.

Regards,

Scott

[Flatlander]

Originally posted by pnosko
Agreed 100%. But which knowledgeable folks here are making this recommendation?

Umm, that would be the gentleman you're currently talking with, for one.

[pnosko]

Originally posted by Bomber
and where is that scientific proof from you that sand beds do not do everything we have said they do?

I am not a scientist, but even if I was, it would not be my job to disprove a negative. It is your job to prove it happens. At this point, you argument seems evasive.

[Bomber]

Pete, you are the one saying that the material supplied in the "journals" thread is wrong. Even though there are hundreds of scientific papers linked in that thread.
Yellowtang, Habib, me, and a ton of other people looked those articles up and linked them.
We proved it happened and happens just like we say it does.

You are saying that it does not.

Step up to the plate. Produce something that says marine sediments do not work the way those hundreds of scientific articles say they do.

At this point your argument seems to be just what it is, a argument and nothing else.

[pi]

I am going attempt to make a quick point then step away and allow the petty arguing to continue.

Each time I see one of these threads, it is my opinion one of the biggest constraints in determining what type of "bed" to use (DSB, SSB, BB) is missed. TIME! How long do you plan on having the system up and running using the bottom of choice. Each works well, the question is how long will they work and keep your closed system in balance?

Example, I read a post the other day where a college student in a dorm was agonizing which bottom to use in his new tank. To me it was simple, he is in a DORM and the life of the system is roughly only 9 months before the school kicks him out for the summer. In 9 months time, any of the three choices would work fine and he should review other factors (cost, maintenance) to help make the decision.

The question(s) should be directed away from which bottom is best and towards, how long to I plan to have the system? What maintenance comes with each type of bottom? What is the associated cost? There are others.....

[HippieSmell]

Originally posted by pi
Each time I see one of these threads, it is my opinion one of the biggest constraints in determining what type of "bed" to use (DSB, SSB, BB) is missed. TIME! How long do you plan on having the system up and running using the bottom of choice. Each works well, the question is how long will they work and keep your closed system in balance?

Example, I read a post the other day where a college student in a dorm was agonizing which bottom to use in his new tank. To me it was simple, he is in a DORM and the life of the system is roughly only 9 months before the school kicks him out for the summer. In 9 months time, any of the three choices would work fine and he should review other factors (cost, maintenance) to help make the decision.

In the case of a dorm, I would say to go BB. It's probably a small tank and at nine months the DSB is just starting to become effective. I would think a BB would be much less hassle short term.

[Bomber]

Originally posted by pi
The question(s) should be directed away from which bottom is best and towards, how long to I plan to have the system? What maintenance comes with each type of bottom? What is the associated cost? There are others.....

That's exactly what most of us are trying to do pi, between being called DSB haters, etc. which derails the thread for a while.

My opinion:

Can you keep a 12" Queen angel in a 30 gal tank? Sure you can.
Can you make it work? sure you can.

Is it the best for that fish? Can you apply that to all fish?

People that try to distract that point like to accuse and say it's applied to all fish - all corals and all reef tanks.

Of course people can have successful "reef tanks" almost anyway from no filtration at all, to lots of filtration. It depends on what type of "reef tank" they want and what animals they house in it.

In my opinion, saying one type of system for each and every description of "corals" and what animals are housed in that system is what's wrong.
The difference between running sand and no sand, is that with sand the sand dictates the conditions of the system. The sand bed is the largest living organism in the system and makes the most demands on the system. It also controls the water quality of the system - good or bad. The person operating that system has to design what's housed in that system around the sand bed.

With no sand, the person that's operating the system has complete control over the system and can make it as clean or dirty as they want.

[Bomber]

Originally posted by HippieSmell
In the case of a dorm, I would say to go BB. It's probably a small tank and at nine months the DSB is just starting to become effective. I would think a BB would be much less hassle short term.

This is something that's very important that for some reason is not mentioned.

You can't just dump in sand and go. It can take months for a DSB to start functioning properly.

[MiddletonMark]

Pi - totally agree with you on the time factor.

For the dorm, personally, I'd say just dump a SSB in and be done with it.

Over that period of time, will any `sink' fill up and cause problems? Unlikely.
Is this the sort of setup I'd worry about SPS coloration in, set up equipment heavy? Nope.
Would a sink be a good thing, given there will be periods with little/no maintenance - possibly for 1 week + periods [holiday,spring breaks, etc ...]? IMO, it might be a good place to have a substrate - for these periods where maintenance, skimmer adjustment/cleaning, etc are impossible.

Just my take, but I agree with Pi's statement about time period.

[pnosko]

Originally posted by Bomber
Pete, you are the one saying that the material supplied in the "journals" thread is wrong. Even though there are hundreds of scientific papers linked in that thread. Yellowtang, Habib, me, and a ton of other people looked those articles up and linked them. We proved it happened and happens just like we say it does. You are saying that it does not. Step up to the plate. Produce something that says marine sediments do not work the way those hundreds of scientific articles say they do.

Please quote me where I said ANY of this. Please don't put words in my mouth. (FWIW, I don't know what "journals" thread you're referring to. Got a link?)

At this point your argument seems to be just what it is, a argument and nothing else.

My argument? I didn't argue at all on this thread. If I did, please quote me. I SIMPLY answered asnatlas's question, indicating that I would still use a (proper) DSB. Then I agreed with Jamesurq (excluding saying "never"). Then I agreed with your statement that...

"I" personally think recommending a sand bed to house "all" animals that hobbyists keep in aquariums is wrong.

...and SIMPLY asked where this is happening. Not even Dr. Ron would advocate a DSB for someone wanting to keep sand sifters. I never said anything negative about a BB setup except that they are not my personal preference. You are the one hurling FUD about DSBs.

[Bomber]

Originally posted by pnosko
Well, I could be convinced they were bad if the convincing had some scientific merit, but I've seen very little scientific merit in the conversations from the DSB haters.

Originally posted by pnosko
But which knowledgeable folks here are making this recommendation?

Originally posted by pnosko I am not a scientist, but even if I was, it would not be my job to disprove a negative. It is your job to prove it happens. At this point, you argument seems evasive.

Originally posted by pnosko You are the one hurling FUD about DSBs.

http://archive.reefcentral.com/forum...08#post1941608

[pnosko]

Well, since I didn't participate in that "journals" thread at all (never even read it), I think it's fair to conclude that I never said the material in that thread is wrong, and my quotes in your thread above are consistent with that.

I then assume you refer to that thread (which I still have not read) to answer my question regarding people who advocate DSBs for any and "all" livestock kept in aquariums. If that has and continues to happen, I continue to agree with you that such recommendations are misguided and inappropriate.

Based on what science I *have* read and my own personal experience (after breaking down a tank with a 2+ year old DSB), I currently consider them to be an excellent biofilter when properly setup and maintained in an appropriate-sized tank with suitable livestock. New information could change my opinion, but I no longer have any SW tanks at all at this point in time and don't intend to jump back into this debate right now.

I do plan to get back into the hobby in a few years, will be keeping my Southdown, and will likely revive this and/or the "journals" thread when I'm ready to setup a tank again.